March issue, Preservation. Story of #9. I read they gave her a new boiler, then replaced the frame. I had to wonder, not much is left of the original, so just how much of a locomotive needs to be original before it is no longer a restoration, but is now a replica?
I mean it is great the locomotive is running, but is it now restored or replaced?
What little research that I have done on British steam locomotives seems to say that complete boiler replacement was a common thing back when they were in revenue service.
.
I guess there's no good answer to this question. Reminds me of the joke about the old axe:
"This axe has been in my family for over 200 years! It's had three new handles and two new heads. It's real old!"
The paramount thing to me, and should be to everyone else, is safety. I've got a fear in the back of my mind that the next steam locomotive that has a boiler failure or, God forbid, an explosion, will be the last steam locomotive that turns a wheel for public exhibition and enjoyment.
Do what you have to do to keep them safe and running well. Everything else is secondary, and as Big Jim said, railroads replaced boilers and other parts all the time in decades past.
The Ship of Theseus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus appears to be the original historical preservation of a transportation artifact.
Theseus is the historical-legendary-mythological Greek hero who rescued the Athenian "tributes" -- of which you could say "The Hunger Games" is a modern borrowing. The ship on which he and his compatriots returned to Athens was for a very long time preserved as a symbol of Athenian heritage, but they had to replace every piece of it until nothing was left of the original woodwork.
The great philosophers starting with Aristotle, apparently, have been "all over" this question.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Interesting, Paul. Reminds me of Stonewall Jackson's watch.
In it's Civil War exhibit the Virginia Historical Society has on display Stonewall's pocket watch, but there's a bit of a problem. It was originally an English watch but at some point after the Civil War someone replaced the English movement with an American made Elgin movement, most likely because the English movement failed beyond repair and it was easier to put a newer American movement in it.
For years it was displayed open, but someone must have said something to them about it. It's now displayed closed. Problem solved, I suppose.
The story of Theseus' ship reminds me of the "Golden Hind." After his round the world voyage the Elizabethans decided to preserve Sir Francis Drake's ship "Golden Hind" as a historic artefact, which they did. However it only lasted (I think) about 75 years or so, it wasn't maintained at all, and so time and rot took it's toll and the ship was scrapped sometime in the 17th Century. Too bad.
Wayne
The U.S. Navy maintains a special stand of high-quality oak trees - available for use when new wood is needed to repair USS Constitution.
In Rails to the Rising Sun, Charles small commented that some of the oldest locos in use in Japan shortly after WWII had had so many parts replaced over the years that the only thing remaining of the original machine was the wheel arrangement.
When I visited Jamestown, CA several years ago Sierra #3 (the Petticoat Junction loco) was disassembled for complete overhaul. I was told that the boiler had been shipped to Sacramento to be used as a template for a brand-new all-welded replacement.
Chuck
In the U.K. you can buy a new body shell for an E-type Jaguar (for example.) You transfer all of the running gear and so forth from a rusted or wrecked car, transfer the chassis plate and legally, it's the same car. There's body builders there who will built you any kind of car for a price but it must be an exact copy of the original otherwise it can't be registered. So you can own your grandfather's car, even though he never sat in it.
With Sierra No. 3 it was a safety issue with the old, original 1891 boiler. Sierra decided to play it safe and have a new boiler built.
The old one's going to become a static display illustrating 19th Century riveted boiler construction.
My standard of realism is that it has to burn solid fuel.
You could substitute "bio-coal" as the Minnesota project with an AT&SF 4-6-4 is proposing, but it has to be solid fuel.
Yes, heavy fuel oil was burned as boiler fuel "back in the day", and it was somewhat cheaper than the light oil used in contemporary Diesels. But the movement is to burn light oil (i.e. Diesel) in steamers because it is much easier to work with and may even be cheaper to operate steam that way rather than buy coal in odd-lot quantities.
But for me, you could burn coal, you could burn wood or wood pellets, you could burn a charcoal made from biowaste, but the essence of external combustion (steam) is that it uses fuels no Diesel engine could ever use.
That's a fair thing to say about solid fuel, but I think had railroads continued using steam, they would likely have eventually used a lighter fuel as the technology developed. I've run stationary boilers using #6 fuel, the consistency was like tar and it would not burn at all unless heated to 180F and it's not fun. Water tube boilers they were, built in 1933. On the midnight shift you got to operate the soot blowers. If it was done during the day, people would have screamed! There were people there that operated the boilers on coal up until 1968. Even less fun, according to them.
The issue is not limited to external-combustion locomotives. In another thread, someone complained mightily that the "Flying Yankee", while being rebuilt for operation, was going to have a 6-567 engine installed rather than rebuild the original 201-A engine with OEM replacement parts.
But was not the Flying Yankee re-engined with a 567 engine by the B&M during its long operating career?
The subject here is "Identity" and has been extensively studied in the marine law and insurance industry.
Here is the classic definition found in British Maritime Legal tradition is illustrated in Manly Hopkins Manual For Marine Insurers -
"We must remember that the principle of identity applies to ships as to human beings. The 'JANE' remains the 'JANE' in spite of all her successive repairs and replacements; just as her owner Thompson, remains Thompson, nonwithstanding the unceasing flux and change that goes on in every part of his body."
------------------
Reading Railroad 4-8-4 Northern RDG 2100 is itself regardless that it was built from another engine and or rebuilt again numerous times. The law concering ownership of things would be seriously challenged without strong legal concepts and laws of "IDENTITY." Which no matter how romantic are not defined by railfan sentiment regarding new - original - rebuilt - repaired - historic - or reproduction!
Doc
The 1940-48 Lincoln Continentals were known for having troublesome V-12 flathead engines. A lot of them had newer engines installed back when they were daily drivers years ago. A V-8 from a 1949 Cadillac was a common conversion that made the car a whole lot more practical and reliable. It's still a Lincoln, the engine is historic so would you really need to find and rebuild an original V-12 if you had a Lincoln Continental today? Especially since there are plenty of them with the original engines. In the case of the Flying Yankee, it would be nice if it had the original power plant but like the Lincoln, engines get changed for practical reasons.
54light15 The 1940-48 Lincoln Continentals were known for having troublesome V-12 flathead engines. A lot of them had newer engines installed back when they were daily drivers years ago. A V-8 from a 1949 Cadillac was a common conversion that made the car a whole lot more practical and reliable. It's still a Lincoln, the engine is historic so would you really need to find and rebuild an original V-12 if you had a Lincoln Continental today? Especially since there are plenty of them with the original engines. In the case of the Flying Yankee, it would be nice if it had the original power plant but like the Lincoln, engines get changed for practical reasons.
When it comes to prices collectors will pay for cars - original always fetches higher prices.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Back in the 'nineties, I was present at the RR Museum of Pennsylvania when a presentation on railway preservation was given by John H. White, Jr., retired Curator of Transportation at the Smithsonian Institution. Mr. White said he regretted some of the preservation efforts he had participated in, and said it would have been better to retain the original parts and form, with their "patina of age". He said some "replicas" could better be described as "repel-icas" because they were literally repulsive to a person who loves the facts of history.
I suspect he would have approved of some restorations, and disapproved of others. If the artifact can only be saved through radical reconstruction, then maybe that's the only option. If operation is the goal, then maybe radical reconstruction is necessary. But in that case, I suspect he would rather see a convincing replica than a greatly altered original.
Maybe there is no single correct answer, but I think Mr. White's voice still cries out, hoping to be heard.
Tom
Judgement calls, anyway you look at it.
Maestro Lynn Moedinger of the Strasburg Railroad (and there's little those boys can't do!) has said if a boiler's 85% good and 15% bad, he'll rebuild the bad part to keep the locomotive as original as possible. "Build a replica" says Lynn, "and a replica is what you have."
But being a realist, he's also said he'd go with a new boiler "in a heartbeat" if he had to. It's all about safety.
Back to judgement calls.
Balt ACD, I agree with you but there is the fact that cars, like locomotives have long lives and things are done to them to keep them in use. What someone may have done to a car (if done well) 65 years ago doesn't kill it's value to most people. Sure, there are sticklers for originality but most people are glad to see such a car as a 1940 Lincoln Continental still on the road, even if the engine isn't quite correct. Babe Ruth owned a 1940 L.C. and as far as I know, he had an Oldsmobile engine installed in it. I certainly would not undo something the Babe had done if I was lucky enough to own that particular car.
There is a current movement amongst old car people and that is to conserve what is original and keep the patina. A car that is shabby but still has the paint applied in Dearborn in 1940 is worth more and is more interesting than one that's been restored. It's only original once.
ACY Back in the 'nineties, I was present at the RR Museum of Pennsylvania when a presentation on railway preservation was given by John H. White, Jr., retired Curator of Transportation at the Smithsonian Institution. Mr. White said he regretted some of the preservation efforts he had participated in, and said it would have been better to retain the original parts and form, with their "patina of age". He said some "replicas" could better be described as "repel-icas" because they were literally repulsive to a person who loves the facts of history. I suspect he would have approved of some restorations, and disapproved of others. If the artifact can only be saved through radical reconstruction, then maybe that's the only option. If operation is the goal, then maybe radical reconstruction is necessary. But in that case, I suspect he would rather see a convincing replica than a greatly altered original. Maybe there is no single correct answer, but I think Mr. White's voice still cries out, hoping to be heard. Tom
With respect to railroad equipment and artifacts, one also must decide whether a given piece has more historic and interperative value as a static display, or as an operating one. Modern materials and laws must also be taken into consideration, for example asbestos was the insulation of choice for locomotive boilers in the past, but cannot be used today since we know it to be hazardous. Lead paint too. The same goes for the boilers themselves, today it would be extremely difficult and expensive, if not impossible to get a riveted boiler made so a welded one that performs the same function will suffice to keep the locomotive operational. That is an example of an artifact with more value as an operational as opposed to a static display. The flipside would be an ancient boxcar made mostly of wood and maybe without air brakes, too fragile to be used even in excursion trains today without a complete (and expensive) rebuilding, but a valuble display showing how freight cars used to be built.
Ease of restoration and the best use of limited funds and volunteer time also must be considered for most projects. For example at the Alberta Railway Museum we are currently re-roofing a Northern Alberta Railways' caboose. Years of outside display have rotted the original roof, which was two layers of unplaned 1x6 tongue & groove lumber with tarpaper and then more tar on top. One option that was considered was to construct a new roof (including buying what would now be custom-sized lumber) in that manner, but it would have cost more and taken far more time to do. So instead it was decided to make the new roof out of pressure-treated plywood with rubberized rolled roofing on top. Not the historic way but quicker, easier, cheaper and it will last longer with less maintenance. And the interior of the caboose (the real historic part of this artifact, which had previously been restored to its 1950s appearance) will be well protected and serve a valuble interperative role to the visiting public.
Having said that I prefer to go the authentic route when possible, and original parts should be preserved and re-used as much as possible. I was overjoyed to see the recent video of the No. 8ET brake valves the UP Steam Program has rebuilt for 844 and 4014, I thought for sure they would be replacing them with 26L's for ease of maintenance and operation... must be awesome to have a big budget!
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Well just think the only original part required of any airplane is its builders plate. Think of Delta's DC-3 but it flies very well..
The issue can often be defined as just what are you trying to preserve? NYC&HR 999 was heavily rebuilt twice by NYC before it was retired from service so the locomotive at the Museum of Science & Industry is not the speed demon from 1893. Nevertheless, it is still worth preserving because of its history.
Similarly, any one of the diesels re-powered during the mid to late 1950's could have been preserved as an example of the engineering involved in such a re-powering. It might not be an original, but it can be a teaching tool.
Sounds real to me. The 999 might have not been the the speed demon she was in 1893, but was the 999 when retired. Look at he changes the as badger has under gone to sail in today's regulations.
Firelock76Maestro Lynn Moedinger of the Strasburg Railroad (and there's little those boys can't do!) has said if a boiler's 85% good and 15% bad, he'll rebuild the bad part to keep the locomotive as original as possible.
Also cheaper.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
zugmann Firelock76 Maestro Lynn Moedinger of the Strasburg Railroad (and there's little those boys can't do!) has said if a boiler's 85% good and 15% bad, he'll rebuild the bad part to keep the locomotive as original as possible. Also cheaper.
Firelock76 Maestro Lynn Moedinger of the Strasburg Railroad (and there's little those boys can't do!) has said if a boiler's 85% good and 15% bad, he'll rebuild the bad part to keep the locomotive as original as possible.
Also historical, my understanding is that patching or replacing sections of boilers was common back in the steam days. Just make sure you do it right, or you get what happened to the Sultana.
CSSHEGEWISCHNYC&HR 999 was heavily rebuilt twice by NYC before it was retired from service so the locomotive at the Museum of Science & Industry is not the speed demon from 1893. Nevertheless, it is still worth preserving because of its history.
But -- in my not-so-humble opinion -- far MORE worth 'preserving' through painstaking restoration to one of its 'original' states (e.g., with or without the gusset plates stabilizing lateral excursion of the long truck springs, but with the riding cutoff, high drivers, etc. put back on). (And that effort would be even more 'worth doing' if the restoration were to operation, and some proof testing of achievable road speed conducted...)
The 'current' drayhorse state of 999 is something that can be adequately covered in photographs and other documentary material, NOT anything particularly significant to the physical artifact. Here is an example where the 'fame' of the artifact is specifically associated with a particular configuration or 'build state', and not with mere survival of part of the structure. (Now, I'm glad to have 'something' instead of 'nothing', but the "real" 999 is the high-speed record-setting locomotive...)
In some alternative Universe where someone is interested enough to pay for it, yes, I am certainly interested in seeing whether a high-drivered narrow-firebox saturated-steam slide-valved steam locomotive even had the power output to pull a train in excess of 100 MPH.
But I think that experiment should be run on a replica -- does anyone really want to do this to the original hardware, both from a preservation standpoint and that of safety?
Paul MilenkovicIn some alternative Universe where someone is interested enough to pay for it, yes, I am certainly interested in seeing whether a high-drivered narrow-firebox saturated-steam slide-valved steam locomotive even had the power output to pull a train in excess of 100 MPH.
Personally, I think this is possible; in fact, I think the 'engine' aspect was clearly demonstrated with some of the locomotives in Atlantic City service before the turn of the 20th Century (and some other contemporary reports with narrow-box power). There is nothing inherently 'wrong' with narrow-firebox engines (the British 5AT uses one by choice, for 125mph+ design speed) as the vertical gas path is at least as good as a modern deep-firebox engine and the radiant heat uptake to water similarly. There is also relatively little problem with properly-balanced slide valves with riding cutoff and good passage contours; in fact, it should not be difficult to achieve very high steam mass flow on short opening with a good design. Steam jackets go a long way toward relieving the wall-condensation part of what superheat addresses, and (for speed in the 100 mph range) I suspect mass flow could be traded for water rate to 'correct' for much of the effect of nucleate condensation. There's no inherent problem with 'Stephenson' gear for short high-speed runs (lubrication of the eccentrics being the biggest potential one), and I think it's been discussed that some of its characteristics are better for a high-speed engine that has to accelerate itself up to speed than Walschaerts.
We're talking appropriately light trains for the highest speeds.
There's nothing inherently 'unsafe' about using older material if it has been properly tested, and properly repaired where necessary. However, I do agree with you that using the 'original artifact' for the actual high-speed testing might be objectionable to preservationists (we don't see Mallard or the German 2-C-2 coming out of museums to re-create record runs!)
I was thinking that if (fairly) extensive work was to be done on 999 to restore it to its original configuration, it might make sense to run that a couple of times rather than repeat all the work and build a replica. But the 'greatest' expense is making the parts the first time; doing two of everything is certainly not much more of an effort at 'restoration' time, and then you're a long way toward having an operating replica... in this case, two would certainly be better than one...
If my memory serves me right, NYC&HR 999 had its 86" drivers replaced with smaller and more practical drivers in one rebuilding and was re-boilered in a second rebuilding. It would take a lot of work to transform 999 from the prosaic 4-4-0 that currently exists to the track-burner of 1893.
that is ture for the U.S. steam locomotives too. every time the locomotive was over haled, they would also change the bioler too
csx6000 that is ture for the U.S. steam locomotives too. every time the locomotive was over haled, they would also change the bioler too
Huh????????
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.