It apparently needs to be pointed out that this was not a typical run-of-the-mill Pullman day coach, but rather (as the Museum extensively elaborated in other publicity) a special-duty "hospital car" conversion, one of two made for carrying ill travelers from Chicago to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and also featured special features such as extra doors and vibration reduction:

https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/st ... 355801001/



It seems that if I'm forced to choose between trusting a museum's extensive collective research and resources as to what the car in question looked like in service, versus listening to some (nameless here) social media commentator's declarations, without any provided corroborating info, on "know[ing] how a heavyweight Pullman car is supposed to look on the inside," to the point where the latter ends up blocked on the former's page, well....................... discretion inclines me to take the former quite a bit more seriously, pending additional data being provided on that specific car........ Now, if "pullmanologist" is an archivist at the IRM or Pullman Library, that might be a different matter, but not without a name and credentials attached........

The photos of their "restoration" speak for themselves. Anyone that has even the remotest knowledge or familiarity with the inside of an original Pullman car could see that this looks more like a high school play set than an actual Pullman car. They claim a lack of information - there are 6 photos of the EPHRAIN McDOWELL at the Smithsonian - 5 of the interior. They have the LAKE MITCHELL sitting right in their museum to see what a Drawing Room looks like. They claim the doors for loading patients were added - those 2 cars were original construction in 1930 - not rebuilds - Lot 6339 - Plan 4003. The CCR for the car no doubt is at the Newberry Library and would have told them volumes about the interior - tile color for example.

Looking at their photographs and comparing them to photographs of Pullman cars at the time are the ONLY credentials needed to make those comments. One doesn't need to be an "archivist" to see the difference! Oh and being an "archivist" doesn't mean you actually know anything about the subject matter with which you "archive". You might develop a working knowledge of the subject and materials but it does not make you a scholar in that area of knowledge. Archivist: An archivist is an information professional who assesses, collects, organizes, preserves, maintains control over, and provides access to records and archives determined to have long-term value. Scholar: A specialist in a particular branch of study, especially the humanities; a distinguished academic.

I claim to be neither but I can look at a picture and see the difference!

Rather than making the claims of their extensive research and how it is an accurate and meticulous restoration of how the car actually looked when it was in service they could make the honest and accurate claim that "Due to the constraints of time, information and resources and given the fact that the major portion of the interior had been removed decades ago we choose to create an interpretation of what the interior would have looked like in order to tell the story of how these cars were used." That would be honest and not make someone that knows the difference question the truth and accuracy of the other information they present.

As to their "extensive research" - they likely have extensively researched the history and the story of the operation and use of the JOSEPH LISTER and EPHRAIM McDOWELL. I in no way question what they say about that since about all I know is what Bill Kratville wrote in Steam, Steel and Limiteds. It seems they tell that story very well and I am delighted that they saved the car and tell that unusual and fascinating story. You just have to question their research on what the inside of the car looked like when it only barely resembles an original, intact heavyweight Pullman car that is sitting right there in their own building - that also has Open Sections, a Drawing Room and both Men's and Women's Rest Rooms. If they did the "extensive research" they certainly ignored what they found. They didn't even put dummy upper berth fronts in!

Quite a few people that are at least somewhat familiar with what heavyweight Pullmans looked like on the inside are already asking on the Facebook group where the Museum's main post about the car was shared - "Did the car not have upper berths?" "Was it common for Pullman to have partial graining in the cars?" "I didn't realize Pullman used solid white tile in the cars!" "Amazing that they found original Pullman carpet!" and so on. So their declaration as to how extensive their research was and how accurately they have duplicated the interior leads to this kind of misrepresentation because they have set themselves up to be the experts and their project becomes a document of authenticity. Then along comes someone like Alexander D. Mitchell IV that believes them rather than someone that knows what a Pullman car looks like and questions that persons credentials to make the comparison. (Btw - I have studied and researched Pullman and Pullman cars for 50+ years and have an extensive personal library of photographs and files and most every book published on the subject. I was responsible for the restoration of one of the finest existing examples of Pullman's wooden car building and have consulted on numerous car restoration. Arthur Dubin was a personal friend and I knew Bill Kratville, Bob Wayner and Peter Tilp. I have researched extensively - in person - at the IRM Pullman Library, the Newberry Library and the Smithsonian. All of that having been said I make no claim to being a "Pullman Expert" as that simply isn't possible. But for having a degree in Pullman history what more qualifications do I need? What I do know is that this project is not true to original no matter what they may claim.) That is why studying Pullman history and trying to keep the record straight is such an unsatisfying pursuit and why I rarely post on this forum!

Do you have ANY PROOF--actual photos, documentation from the C&NW or Pullman, etc.--that the specific hospital car in question DID NOT look and NEVER looked as they restored it?

The Lister was not a normal Pullman. The fact that it doesn't, as restored, match someone's preconceptions of "what a Pullman should look like," even a self-taught "expert" on Pullmans, should not be surprising. It does not stand to reason that a different car built with somewhat different purposes should match exactly a different "standard" Pullman on the property, any more than the interior of a city hospital should resemble the interior of a nearby hotel.

In fact, given your quite apparent hostility and mistrust of the NRM, why should we even accept--in your world--that the interior of the Lake Mitchell was even accurately done? For all we know, the Lister is accurate and the Lake Mitchell wrong. And we have your admission of ignorance:



One book. Which could itself be slightly inaccurate. (I have errata sheets that were compiled for many "definitive" books in the RR field.)

As for the doors being added: The wording could easily apply if the doors were added on the Pullman "assembly line" to the "normal" design.

Me? I'm just going to be happy another Pullman anywhere (even an odd example) has been restored, considering the many other examples I know of out there unrestored after decades and fitting for inclusion in major rail museums to represent the Pullman era...................

So if something is so glaringly wrong it shouldn't be pointed out just because we are so delighted they saved it? I am more than happy they saved it - delighted in fact! It is just troubling that the public will now think it looked like that with no upper berths and white vinyl floor tile. I thought this forum was about railway "preservation" - doesn't that indicate that when "preservation" is misrepresented it should be discussed and the person pointing out the mistakes not subject to ad hominem attacks?

Your claim that "they did it wrong!!!" is thus far only that--a claim--and unsupported by evidence to the contrary. All you have offered is that it doesn't match the other Pullman on the property.

Claims require proof.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

There could be reasons that they ignored your claimed complaints (and ultimately blocked you):
*They have evidence they trust better than yours;
*The various evidence conflicts with one another, and they chose one approach;
*You didn't provide contradictory evidence (or any, for that matter);
*They don't care;
or, *You made yourself insufferable or obnoxious with repeated attacks on their integrity.

Many museums, operations, and whatnot get utterly sick of "sidewalk superintendents" or self-professed "experts" or "know-it-alls" claiming to know better than they do. Real experts acknowledge the possibility of being wrong, and will welcome contradicting evidence. Others will often just reject or deny firsthand evidence being waved in their faces--their minds are made up; don't confuse them with facts.......

I believe I said I was NO "expert" on Pullman much less a "self-taught" expert. I am not aware of any institution of higher learning that offers a degreed course in Pullman. Mitchell asked for my qualifications to comment and I believe they exceed his qualification to continue to make ad hominem remarks about me. I also never questioned the story they tell about the car yet somehow he conflated my admission of knowing little about the operation of the car to what Pullman cars looked like inside. I guess I forgot a lesson I should have learned from Mark Twain.

One last time:

Can you produce evidence or proof that "they got it wrong" with this specific car?

To set the record straight the 5 interior photographs at the Smithsonian would prove this. If anyone wants to spend the $175 to purchase copies of the photographs from them - be my guest. They are Negative numbers: 35402, 35403, 35404, 35410, 35415 for your easy reference.

Of course if someone did spend the money and post the photographs IV would only say "Those are of the EPHRAIM McDOWELL not the JOSEPH LISTER. How do we know the cars were the same". The ignorance of some people is legion.

Perhaps before members make such horses rear ends of themselves they should read "The Cars of Pullman" to become familiar with the standard practices of Pullman. Or spend some time looking at photos of heavyweight Pullman interiors in "The Official Pullman Standard Library - Selected Heavyweight Cars". Or even better make a trip to the Newberry Library and view the CCR for the JOSEPH LISTER and see for a fact what the size and color of the floor tile was.

It is no wonder that RYPN and this forum are DOA. There is a tremendous amount of information that never gets shared because of personal attacks just like these from IV.

One more source, "A Century of Pullman Cars Volume 1 Alphabetical Listing" Ralph L. Barger has both cars with the same Plan No (4003) and Lot No (6339). However this may not be proof enough for some people.

Unfortunately for your ego, it's still a legitimate question.

Further:
Are whatever cars being restored/presented as built, or at some later period in their careers? Were changes ever made by C&NW or Pullman later, that are reflected in other documentation in the hands of the NRM?
That kind of problem's going to arise repeatedly. Take, for example, the PRR/PC/Amtrak Metroliner cafe 860 at the RR Museum of Pa. if/when it ever gets restored. Do they try to backdate it to "as built," or do they work with all the spares from the later Amtrak operational era we threw in after stripping the sister cars (everything from coffeemaker to seat cushions to pantograph shoes)?

I have been trained in academia as both a journalist ("If your mother says she loves you, get other sources for corroboration!") and as a critical-thinking skeptic. And a couple decades in the trenches of railroad research have taught me well to take any and every "absolute declaration" about railroad history with a wheelbarrowful of salt--blatantly misdated photo captions, the repetition of "urban legends" like the "Chinese coolies hanging in wicker baskets" to chisel out a Central Pacific cut, or "Camelbacks were banned by the ICC" or the like. Even many of the so-called "definitive" "authoritative" books and writers turn out to be full of errors, and in one or two cases anecdotes/stories made up from whole cloth and presented as "firsthand accounts."

If you wish to challenge my inquiries as "hostility" or "personal attacks," please refer to the second post in this thread, where you chose to initiate such hostility by directly and "publicly" attacking the integrity of the NRM.
And if you wish to pursue recommending "corrective action" by the Museum, I suggest that you gather the contradicting evidence and have someone ELSE present it to the curators of the Museum--because it seems (by your own admission) that your open hostility online has damaged your credibility with said museum, or at least its Facebook moderators.

IV the issue seems to be your ego and there is nothing legitimate about anything you have said! Just a lot of bloviating about something you know nothing about.

Oh and btw - I posted the builder's photo of that Lot to compare the original lettering to what is on the car now. So there is one example for you. I'm sure you will challenge that in your well-known fashion - your reputation precedes you!

According to the Facebook link below, ex-Pullman Buffet-Lounge "Cuba") (as GM&O "Azalea" and 12-1 Sleeper "Orange State" have been purchased by a Mr. John Matthews and will be turned into a personal private train.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/GMO880B/permalink/4985737378170630/

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21254&start=15 Topic is also discussed here.

FOR THE RECORD:

The only one who has made "personal attacks" in this "side thread" on the NRM and the Lister Pullman is you--against both the NRM and now me.

You did not raise questions about their restoration; you flat-out accused them of 1) doing it inaccurately and 2) ignoring supposedly contributed evidence. I asked legitimate questions in response to your attacks on the Museum's integrity/accuracy. You, in turn, chose to attack me on a personal level for raising such questions.

You yourself are a large part of the problem you condemn.

Glen Fee at the Galveston RR Museum in Galveston, TX is also getting a much needed repaint. My friend Yellow Rose (His photo, shared with permission) says they will repaint the 6-3 into its1947 American Freedom Train scheme.