Interesting (and a bit humorous) to see this thread evolve from a discussion on Steamtown to one of the oldest debates on one of the fundamental questions of railroad preservation.

I offer my two cents now as an employee of one Class II railroad and a former employee of a Class III which ran (and continues to run) steam on a regular basis. I have little to no experience in the shop, but am an avid fan of the stuff.

Of what value is a preserved machine that doesn’t work? As time goes on, these machines that draw us all onto this forum need to be maintained by individuals increasingly distant from the era of regular service steam. To cherry pick an example, if we go the route of the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania, in 300 years we will have a plethora of examples of steam locomotives lovingly preserved as close as they could be to the day they exited service. This is undoubtedly hard work, and has intrinsic value. These pieces would serve to offer historians and mechanical engineers of the future a view into how these machines were maintained during a specific window of time, when steam was commonplace. Problem is, if that’s the only preservation we did across the nation for 300 years, there would be few if any historians or mechanical engineers left who possess the knowledge and experience for this to matter!

Like all things, there ought to be a balance. To bring it back to Steamtown, RDG 2124 is virtually untouched from the day she exited service, barring paint and other cosmetic details. Despite being the only T-1 left standing with roller bearings, I do believe that there is value to preserving her statically in her current condition. However, the only reason I believe that is that there are two other T-1s that are currently operating or close to operating. 2124 could provide insight for those two groups, should there ever come a time when certain knowledge has faded from their shops.

As time marches forward and we grow more distant from the steam era, it is more and more important that we keep these machines running. To me, the value of preserving a locomotive (or any machine) is in seeing how it works. Visually. I can read books and look at diagrams all I want. I can even watch YouTube footage of T-1s in steam from the 40s-60s! Neither of those compare to standing trackside while 2102 breaks 40 mph through Leesport.

Someone earlier in this thread mentioned using “common sense,” and I’m inclined to agree. The decisions we make about what repairs get performed to which locomotives will become increasingly arbitrary as they are run, parts are worn out, etc. In the year 2100, it won’t matter to very many people if PRR 1361 is running with her original firebox or not. What will matter is if she’s running at all.

Steamtown has an important mission, and I certainly believe in the static preservation of certain pieces. However, their value diminishes as less and less steam is operated.

Since that's not my contention, congratulations on your strawman, Dorothy. While I think the use of the world "violence" is melodramatic in this context, I otherwise think Mr. Bell's post from 12/06/2001 does encapsulate the dilemma quite well.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2343&hilit=violence

And you did miss the point. Note what you wrote: "the idea of them being continually maintained and operated is part of the appeal.

My contention is that over a timeline long enough-every operating locomotive will become more and more a replica than a restoration. Then there is no "them". That's a fact you must accept.

In addition, little by little certain components will be replaced that change the operating characteristics of the locomotive-and whether or not that is a significant revision or distortion is in the eye of the beholder. Witness the following:

Conversion of coal burners to oil. It minimizes line side fire risk, makes fuel handling more convenient and obviates the need to dispose of ash.

Replacement of No. 6 brakes with the 26. You get the pressure maintaining feature, but at the cost of a minimum reduction. You also get a much healthier supply of parts and technical knowledge. Yet the 6 (or the 8) were common on steam and apparently more difficult to master-in the words of the late Bernie O'Brien [the 26] "made a lot of engineers, good engineers"

Replacement of UC and P valves with ABDXL's or other freight brakes. You replace an archaic, service intense valve with a modern one with plentiful parts-but at the cost of the loss of a graduated release.

Nor would I suggest "stuffed and mounted" is the ne plus ultra of preservation. A long time ago, there was a poster on here that was a metallurgist and he send me his thoughts in a PM that even "stuffed and mounted" didn't guarantee the structural integrity of the locomotive over time-he was particularly concerned that metals from decades ago had levels of impurities that would cause the eventual degradation or disintegration of the parts-and that some metals exposed to pressure would deform. I'm not a metallurgist, so I can neither confirm or deny those statements-but the idea of entropy would tend to support them.

I largely agree with you. Part of "preservation" has to involve operations-it's the difference between a fossil and a living specimen. There are things we simply can't know about (extinct) fossils because of the fact we've never seen one living. That was the reason for the commercial success of Jurassic Park/World.

Where I might quibble:

"Of what value is a preserved machine that doesn’t work?"

That machine is the product of specific methods and materials. In preserving the original fabric, we preserve them. Nobody I think cares about the replacement of bearings, even if the replacement is comprised of alloys that didn't exist in the day. We expect some components to be consumed (quickly) through use.

In extremis, there is physical preservation which preserves the artifact intact as it was in its last day of service. But there's also operating preservation which preserves the memory and methods of operation-again there are changes. There was no Motorola on any conductor during the steam era.

My position is operating preservation is for all the reasons you've stated-probably more important than careful fossilization of obsolete power and rolling stock. At some point, I assume time will render every last legacy engine inoperable without complete the replacement or modification of every component. I hope for the absolute success of the 5550, because it not only replicates an otherwise completely eradicated type of locomotive, but serves (along with the Tornado in the UK) as a proof of concept for new build steam, where there is no ethical conundrum about consumptive use.

Or look at it another way. If you were going to a hypothetical museum that showed medieval weaponry and armor, but also had interpretive programs regarding sword-fighting techniques-would you expect the interpreter/re-enactor to suit up with 500 year old chainmail or with replicas?

On the other hand, nobody's flying a replica B-29- but one has heavily modified Wright 3350's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMMvIT8brQc&t=4s

Let's get back to the interesting part of this.

Is Steamtown deaccessioning certain locomotives from the collection?

If so, which locomotives might those be?

Is a slow, atypical Shay being revived and for God's sake, why?

Is B&M 3713 going to remain an autopsy specimen or not?

Which other locomotives are slated for operational repair?

I spoke with somebody with current knowledge recently and was told the Lowville and Beaver 2-8-0 is likely candidate for departure.

The Shay was said to be thought to be in relatively good mechanical condition based upon the condition of the valves-there are other opinions. I was also told that the decision was somewhat arbitrary, based upon one person's personal affections.

In addition, I was told that the substantial upward revision in the cost of the returning the locomotive to operation is based on the receipt of outside opinions about some repair work that was performed by the B&M in which the evaluators both found the work to be problematic-and so a new boiler will be required. A new boiler will require a "white knight".

Now here's the problem. Anybody with the resources to be a "white knight" isn't going drop coin without some sort of guarantee that another Cherie Shepherd doesn't come in and pull the pin. Smart people don't buy pigs in a poke, even when they are making charitable bequests.

As for slated for restoration, that's going to depend on visitation-and I expect visitation to be somewhat moribund in the coming years. Visitation was always driven by nostalgic seniors reliving their youth-and they are an ever-shrinking audience-and children. The dearth of births doesn't bode well for anything that relies on them.

This quote comes from one of the attendees where all of this was announced - via Facebook: "Jeremy is also pursuing the deaccessioning of rolling stock that has no viable future at the park. He mentioned a few active negotiations, but until the involved groups make public statements, I’ll refrain from sharing details."

If the Superintendent did name things, perhaps it's best to contact him directly to ask?

Also - yes - Shay being revived, because it's mechanically in much better shape than many anticipated, it shouldn't take too long to restore, and there's a good chance it will be up and running by the time #26 goes down for it's 15-year inspection. It can keep the schedule of the Limited, and it can "keep steam in Steamtown" until one of the mainline locomotives gets restored.

Regarding 3713 and what's next: "He also expressed interest in returning mainline steam to the park. Potential partnerships are on the table, and so is the long-awaited return of CPR 4-6-2 #2317, which needs an overhaul and inspection. Meanwhile, work continues on B&M #3713, although several million dollars still need to be raised. About $200,000 remains earmarked from earlier Project3713 fundraising, and work on the tender progresses."

It's incredible to me to hear that after all these years of work (25?), and boiler evaluations that would/should have been done during this time, it was only recently discovered that 3713 would need a new boiler. If true, this has to be the biggest failure of a restoration attempt ever. If so, just put it back together, get it looking as good as possible, and get it out of the shop and focus on something else. Enough is enough.

John

No one said the 3713 needs a new boiler. The cost is for a new contractor to come in and do all their own calculations before finishing the firebox (of which all the material is on hand.)

Glad to hear that. My post was in response to Superheater's last post

John

For anyone keeping track - how much money has been put into the #3713 so far (from all prior contractors/equipment/restoraton costs)?

I'd love to know that too. That's why I was shocked to hear they still need another 2-3 million to finish the work.

John

What you may not be realizing is the totality of the situation here: one group of men started the restoration, including various contractors that are no longer involved. The Superintendent at the time halted work on 3713. Every single one of the people involved in the decision making, contracting, and work done so far retired. Regimes changed, and an entirely new group of workers are tasked not with just finishing what was started but figuring out exactly what has been done so far, if previous repairs such as boiler patches were done correctly, develop a plan to finish what is undone, and do it. Both contractors that provided estimates wanted to re-do a significant amount of work that has already been completed, and/or change some previously made decisions that significant money was already spent on (like thermic syphons) because that's the only way they can guarantee that the work is to their standards.

If Steamtown wanted to get it done quick and dirty I'm sure it could be done for less than the estimates currently available, but pressure vessels shouldn't be quick and dirty.

Also, I'll reiterate; everyone who made the decisions that left the program where it is now are retired or dead. Be mad about how it was handled before, we don't care. That wasn't us. I don't think it's a big ask to recognize that we're here trying to solve the problem, we don't need to waste a bunch of time defending or justifying choices we didn't make and, in some cases, don't understand or agree with. We have no time machine with which to go back and change how the previous funding was spent (or misspent, or whatever happened to it.) We want to get the engine running. The 6 guys we have here recognize that we don't have the manpower or combined experience to finish the job entirely in house. If we contract it out, we're at the mercy of what contractors charge. I'm not sure who you should yell at, but it shouldn't be us.

As noted here: viewtopic.php?p=351563#p351563 they have spent roughly $750K on the locomotive. As noted here viewtopic.php?p=351561#p351561 $3M is not out of line for a restoration of a mainline steam locomotive. Note everything not yet completed in the R&R article, which I mention in the first post.

I know of one person (I can assure you he's not one of the dead ones) who would be willing to share his knowledge and hand on experience of what decisions were made and why. His computer might even still be in the park to reference his years of hard work getting this project moving ahead at a fairly good clip. He might even have rough cost estimates for the next planned sub-projects in a logical order to keep the project moving. This person has full knowledge of all of the machines that are in the locoshop and their capabilities. I'm pretty sure all it might take is a request for him to stop by to help the current decision makers fill in some of the blanks.

Hi
With all this going on at Steamtown,, I thought I would ask this question,, since it seems Steamtown /Park service. is trying to reduce the number of Steam locomotives on the property...
Has anyone noticed has any of the equipment has been moved, or getting ready to move???? ( Off The Property) . thank you, Pat.