It's taken me a while to come up with the response to this.

First, an awful lot of folks on this list apparently think that the sectioned-loco concept--applied judiciously to locomotives that are represented elsewhere and are not otherwise candidates for restoration--ARE a good idea, and those folks have most likely accomplished more for actual preservation than any of the nay-sayers.

Your remark "the only people . . . works" is an outright insult of the non-enthusiasts upon which our vocation/avocation depends. The function of the cutaway is to HELP THEM TO UNDERSTAND how it works. Taking such a dismissive attitude towards the non-enthusiast is a guaranteed way to doom your proposals to failure.

If you know "a lot of places looking for a steam locomotive," well, we're fully ready to help. I know of two up for sale as I type, and there are lots more probably informally in need of a good/better home than their current circumstances that could be made available given the right approach--let's start with that C&O Kanawha in Lynchburg, or SP&S 539 in Williams, Arizona, or that Army 2-8-0 at Cass, or...........

Finally, we have to address the "must preserve everything" attitude:

Taken to its rational extreme, not only should no steam locomotive or other "preserved" rolling stock (diesel, Pullman, caboose, whatever) ever be scrapped (because someone, somewhere, just might want it for spares), but no such preserved stuff should ever be OPERATED. Think about it: every time someone takes a PCC for a run, they wear down more of the original wheels, brushes, handle metal, etc. Every time someone fires a steamer, there's one less fire-up left in that boiler. Every time someone walks through a passenger car, there's less carpet fabric as it's worn down. This mentality is often referred to as the "preserved in amber" approach.

Many museums and academics LOVE this approach. It definitely preserves the artifact for future generations, you can't be blamed for something going wrong or for taking a risk, and the dogmatic approach also suits many a business environment--the rule is made by someone else, so it's not your problem (think your Department of Motor Vehicles). The problem is that without proper interpretation or demonstration, gradually one is preserving the artifact solely for the artifact's sake, and eventually it matters little if the passenger car, conductor's uniform, steam whistle, or crew photograph is handsomely displayed or shoved down some random aisle in the same warehouse bunker as the Ark of the Covenant in the close of the "Indiana Jones" movie--because anyone who cared has passed on, and no one who's still alive gives a toot because they have no way to relate to it.

And if it just doesn't matter, then why do we have it?

The delicate dance is to strike a balance between preservation and demonstration. I could make the case that the only reason the RR Museum of Pa. is a success is because of that "demonstration line" across the street. I could make the case that the only reasons that the PRR and Reading Co. T&H Societies are still thriving concerns are Reading 2101, 2102, and 900-902, and PRR 1361, 1223, 7002, 5898, 5706, 5711, and 5809. The South was once loaded with NRHS chapters--thanks to a certain railroad's steam program.

You know, if it means there's someone that would care enough to be willing to read our railroad books and magazines after I'm gone, then eventually slap on another coat of paint or restore Ol' no. 97 back to service in 100 years........... go section another redundant steamer, dammit!

And finally: If it meant that it would generate enough interest in preservation that you could succeed in preserving an F40PH in Massachusetts, would you be willing to let someone section out an Amtrak F40PH that would otherwise go to scrap?

Bill and Sarah Purdie were making a long planned trip to visit his ancient Scottish homeland and I happened to be stationed in England in the Air Force at the same time. We met at their hotel in London and all three of us took British Rail's Inter-City 125 train to York for the day. We walked all over the place and then took the train back to London. I think it might have been on Aug 1, 1987 according to a log book of photos I have. He was not dressed in any kind of railran outfit and it was only three of us for that one day. He did bring a small tape measure with him and we talked about various measurements he took as we went around. It was very educational for me and showed me how a master mechanic looked at machinery. As far as I know it was his only visit to York, unless he has been back since.

Since F40PH locomotives have now been mentioned in the discussion, how about an F40PH as a possible future candidate for preservation as a "visible" display locomotive with the installation of full length lexan side panels and enhanced interior lighting, with all the piping and system components color coded as was done on the EMD visible F-units of the 1950s. Actually a relatively uncomplicated modification considering the carbody structure on this kind of locomotive, and it would not preclude its being returned to its original configuration at a future time.

Oops, sorry, this belongs in the cutaway diesels discussion....

PC

Railway museums serve two separate, slightly conflicting purposes.

One is the public education function, which is the reason the IRS has granted public charity status - i.e. teaching the general public about railroad history and technology.

The other is the "railfan club" function, as a holder and operator of all the stuff the railfans love - this is what gets the donations and volunteers.

Generally I would say that the interests of the two constituencies are not well-aligned, but also generally not incompatible. But the question of sectioning a locomotive is a rare example of the two interests being WILDLY opposed.

I beleive that in one of the science centers in Toronto or Ontario, I remember seeing a small steamer with several cutaway windows. Back in 1988 - 1990, when it was a good and fun museum, the B&O museum had a display along the wall that, while not being an actual loco) still showed in animation how steam was formed, introduced into the cylinders, and the pistons moving in relation to the steam chest valve, etc. I wonder what happened to it. Rough and Tumble Threshers at Kinzers, PA took an old portable steam boiler and did a cut-a-way on it. Maybe an old lap seam portable boiler could be mocked up to look like a loco, and demonstrate how things like staybolt or flue sheet errosion works, how the exhaust nozzle helps create a draft, etc. While I would like to see how different firebox siphons, over fire jets, etc. work and how arch brick line the crown sheet, etc, it would probably be too much for the lay person.

Mark

Why an old lap seam? A double buttstrap traction boiler would work as well. In the end it's what the exhibit offers to the public.

Unless the buttstrapp or double buttstrap boiler is condemned and beyond repair, lap seam boilers are GENERALLY only rated for 100# at steam shows. At least in my area of the east / north east. Buttstrap's are generally rated for more (depending on other construction details) and are generally worth putting the money into to get the higher pressure. I guess I should have just said a locomotive style portable boiler that is condemned beyond financial justification / reason. Like the flue sheets, firebox, and stays being worn out and the barrell pitted like the PA turnpike.

Mark

While this may be true in current practice for most rail museums, the failure to develop the actual museum functions (interpretive display and education) prevent railway preservationists from attracting a broader constituency of supporters. The "railfan club" approach is loving our movement to death with its inherent disinterest in the programs that are necessary to turn a collection into a museum.

I will tell you another way in which the two approaches are at odds; using all of the resources of an organization to collect and occasionally shelter an ever expanding (and often derelict) collection prevents our "museums" from applying resources toward real exhibits, (real) museum buildings, educational programs, outreach, planning, and marketing.

I certainly understand the points that have been made about using scarce resources to collect too much in a quest to preserve everything, and also the points about the need to educate the public to maintain a base of interest in railroad subjects. In this thread, there has been the suggestion that there are surplus locomotives of insignificant historical value and/or poor condition that would contribute more to the bottom line if they were sectioned and offered for display. If this is the case, what is preventing this from happening?

My main point of concern about sectioning is that I believe you could get more bang for the buck in terms of educational display and even the wow factor by using graphics alongside of locomotives that are perfectly intact, significant, and on display; as opposed to sectioning a locomotive that is in poor condition or historically insignificant. So I believe that, with the graphic approach, the display would be better and cost less. As a secondary concern, I would tend to favor preserving locomotives intact if it were my decision.

In discussing sectioning candidates, there has been mention of avoiding one of a kind or rare locomotives as well as locomotives that might be capable of being rebuilt to run. I am interested in hearing of people’s ideas as to what specific locomotives might be good candidates for sectioning. What about locomotives that are in exceptionally bad condition, but have historical significance? I am thinking about the two Quincy & Torch Lake RR locomotives displayed outdoors at Hancock, Michigan, and Q&TL #3 at Huckleberry RR.

*Have you ever tried something like this? I was involved with something close to this--carefully disassembling a car's components to be reconstructed as part of an indoor museum display--and let me tell you, it's a rhymes-with-witch.

To do this competently requires a LOT of work and planning. Have you ever heard the adage that "use of a Sawzall should require a license and competency testing"? If you handed me a typical steam loco--say, one of the Roanoke "lost" locos--my guess is that it would take several thousand man-hours to produce something akin to Steamtown NHS or NRM York's sectioned locos. (Heck, several thousand hours just to make them presentable while intact!)



The first line of nominees would be locos sitting redundant in some back siding or lot somewhere. The IRM ex-GTW 0-8-0's that were at Galt are the perfect example of a candidate for this exercise; ditto the "exploded view" o-4-0T or 0-6-0T that has been lying disassembled for twenty years. Some of the Kepner stash in Oregon may be candidates. There may be redundant Santa Fe 2-8-0s in many of the community parks out west--Santa Fe seemed to donate as many old steamers as they scrapped at times, and the most sure-fire way to get a town at least moderately interested in their park loco again seems to be to offer to take it elsewhere for a more educational location/use.

The badly-deteriorated C&O 2-8-4 in Lynchburg, which I believe was mentioned earlier.......

Thinking outside the box for a moment: What about getting a retired/replaced boiler from the likes of the NPS 4-4-0s at Promomtory/Gold Spike NHS, or the Disneyland/Disney World locos, or maybe Cedar Point (doesn't Busch Gardens have a replica British steamer?), and sectioning the condemned boiler, then pairing it with fabricated-from-wood/metal wheels, axles, cylinders, etc.?

Well, if you are perceived that way, "you're doing it wrong"

Did you notice the trap in that video clip? The girl did nothing more than indicate a general interest, and made clear the reasons why. The *guy* took a flying leap to the conclusion that she must be a "get a life" parents' basement geek. That particular stereotype is exacerbated by the "fan conventions" and William Shatner's memorable performance on Saturday Night Live.

But the connection isn't as strong from "railway historian" to "patch-vested foamer". Mostly you get that "foamer" perception among railfans and rails. I think the general public is more willing to accept a historian as exactly that, as long as they don't prove themselves to be a foamer.

Yup, I agree totally.

And I realize, it's hard. I hear about units all the time that I want to see go to one of the museums I love. I practically rise out of my seat going "Save it! Save it!" But you know, that's the fatal error. That's why you haven't secured a rail line, land near that line, or barns on that land, which at least gives you a shot at becoming a real museum.

Right now, I think most railway equipment is in a game of "musical chairs". Most equipment "in preservation" is only temporarily held from the scrapper; while we store it and trade it among ourselves, losing a significant fraction of it to fires, deterioration, bankruptcy/auctions and scrapping.

The smart play, the only thing really worth doing, is to transform our museums so they become places actually capable of saving equipment.

In other words -- change the game of musical chairs not by battling other participants, but by building chairs.

The Lynchburg, Kanawha, #2760, has received some very much needed attention i the past couple of years. I visited it when the loco was heavily vandalized and unpainted, and even then, it was largely intact. This locomotive is situated in a damp place, under over-hanging vegetation. It should be moved, and possibly refurbished, but hardly sectioned!

This is the problem with finding sacrificial lambs in the locomotive community. I'd rather a severely damaged, or rusted out locomotive not be cut open, simply because "no one else is using it". The GTW 0-8-0's are under a covenant to never be fired again, so those are plausible candidates, but otherwise, pulling park locomotives out for dissection is a fool's game. The candidates must be basket cases or inoperable due to some major problem. We no longer have the luxury of culling preserved steam locomotives at whim.

I'd suggest that the number of necessary sectioned hulks probably has already reached saturation. I haven't seen what would interest me more done here yet - a disassembled with a wrench display showing an erecting floor or backshop in heavy overhaul scene. Seems we can avoid irreverable damage while interpreting the technology and the people story of the mechanics and crafts at the same time taking this path. Best choice would be an insurers nightmare - have visitors interact with interpreters actually doing heavy overhaul work the way it was done pre OSHA, and perhaps even assisting in some of the heavy work. Second best is live people working and talking at the same time.

dave

I had suggested that the C&O Kanawha that had been displayed at the Cleveland Zoo (#2705, I believe) for over 20 years, and was in pretty bad shape 30 years ago, was a prime candidate for this exercise. I can't remember exactly what happened to it, is this the one that ended up at IRM? There are 12 Kanawhas in existence. There were 13 originally. I believe that the one that was scrapped was a park display that the municipality involved no longer wanted to deal with (Mr. Conrad could you please confirm that?). Is it better that that one was scrapped rather than cut-open as a display?

Look, I'm not suggesting cutting up class loco #2700, or near-operable #2716, or one of the two preserved Lima K-4's, or even the last one, #2789, which I believe is also one of the survivors. I'm suggesting that the public would probably be attracted to, and favorably impressed by, and possibly informed by seeing said locomotive attractively sectioned and animated as an educational display. Possibly, it could be paired with one of the others, properly restored whole for comparison.