Does it even matter, this is just semantics. It's a steam powered RR engine from the not-to-distant past. Representing the industrial revolution which transformed the entire World. wrrsends
The Famous Run of NYC 999 -
A few more details of the 112 mph championship speed run of 1893. An event which involved several famous people over a period of twenty and more years - JAMES GORDON BENNETT JR editor of The New York Herald - second was owner of New York Central and Hudson River Railroad itself - COMMODORE CORNELIUS VANDERBILT his son WILLIAM H. VANDERBILT and his grandson WILLIAM K. VANDERBILT - third was WILLIAM BUCHANAN Superintendent Of Motive Power - fourth was GEORGE H. DANIELS General Passenger Agent of the railroad and finally, fifth was famed New York Central passenger locomotive engineer CHARLES M. HOGAN.
-----------------------------
JAMES GORDON BENNETT JR - The famous 112 mph high speed run began here in the philosophy of this world famous newspaper owner and editor - "His most original contribution to modern journalism could be found in his notion that a newspaper shorld not merely report stores; it should create them. Editors should not only cover the news, he felt; they should orchestrate large-scale public dramas that stir emotions and get people talking. As one historan of American journalism later put it, BENNETT had the 'ability to seize upon dormant situations and bring them to life.'
BENNETT became outrageously wealthy running his New York newspaper. He had a bad boy penchant and eventually so disgusted the American public he was forced to move to France and operate the American news service from that European city.
----------------------------
COMMODORE CORNELIUS VANDERBILT - Who decided to experiment with speed and in the summer of 1874 put on a special fast train to carry the New York Herald's Sunday editions to Saratoga NY, then a very fashionable resort. A year later for nine weekends he operated a three car train from New York to Chicago that cut 6 1/2 hours off of the regular running time of 36 hours. JAMES GORDON BENNETT, publisher had prompted the COMMODORE to try out such a train to advertise speed, rode it with his wife on the first trip and paid $1,000 for each of the nine runs.
WILLIAM H. VANDERBILT - Who took control of the railroad followed up the speed tradition in 1875 with the Fast Mail train cutting Chicago to New York time to 26 hours. This included creating a 4 track main line across the distance and rebuilding the roadbed and special training of railroad personnel. These four car mail trains included mail bags dyed scarlet and one 60 foot car reserved just for newspapers.
The VANDERBILT family would control the New York Central and Hudson Railroad for another 50 years until loosing to Wall Street Speculator Robert Young in a proxy fight for control of the company in the late 1940's. One of the last desendants of this famous American railroad family is Anderson Cooper who broadcasts the CNN News Network today.
Amtrak currently operates on the former New York Central rail line built by the VANDERBILT's. Running time to Chicago is today is close to the fast times set in the great age of steam railroading - about 16 hours.
GEORGE H. DANIELS - The year was 1891 and desiring to increase passenger train speed further WILLIAM K. VANDERBILT hired a brand new railroad General Passenger Agent named GEORGE H. DANIELS who was a former patent medicine salesman and who came up with among other things the idea for a special high speed train. He is also credited with the idea to launch this new, fast, luxury train between New York and Buffalo, called the Empire State Express. Newspapers hailed it as "The World's Fastest Passenger Service." DANIELS went on further with the idea for a special high speed engine. "Let's build a special engine that will take man over the earth at 100 miles per hour!" Perhaps the foremost railroad press agent of all time DANIELS eventually gave the railroad its most famous train in 1902 the 20th Century Limited.
DANIELS saw to it that the 112 mph speed record set by the Empire State Express and its world record run on May 10th, 1893 became front page news around the world. Further, that the engine would be so exhibited on display at the Columbian Exposition in Chicago that same year.
DANIELS became famous for the extensive publication of travel literature concerning all aspects of the New York Central Railroad and held sway for many years from is office in New York Grand Central Station.
Amtrak today runs modern passenger trains through Michigan a few miles north of the famous New York to Chicago track of the Central at a daily speed of 100 mph.
WILLIAM BUCHANAN who from the 1880's thru the 1890's held the title of Superintendent of Motive Power. During this time BUCHANAN developed a large series of "American" type 4-4-0 passenger locomotives designated the "I" class - engines which were perportedly already capable of reaching near 100 mph. These engines were characterized by what was known as the "BUCHANAN look" featuring grey iron boiler jackets which included a jacketed smokebox and were set off by shiney black boiler domes. The engines also featured varnished natural wood engine cabs and were clean lined or should I say "religiously straight lined in look." They were perfect to those who devoted themselves to the athestetic of the horizontal line.
It was BUCHANAN himself who designed the sleek beautiful NYC 999 which became the most famous of the Central's 4-4-0 type engines, and he personally supervised her construction in the railroad's West Albany shop. Differing from her regular passenger sisters NYC 999 rolled out of the shop with gigantic 86" driving wheels, she was brass trimed, and equipped with front truck wheel brakes, and featured a hand polished locomotive frame, and also a speed recorder. Her tender bore in disputed script in either gold leaf or silver with the name of the train not the railroad reading "Empire State Express." With magical and unforgetable numbers on her cab and sand dome the 999 was destined for American fame and history! The NYC 999 was the last hero!
NYC 999 is perported to have reached 102 mph on May 9, 1893 in service of the Empire State Express westward from Batavia, NY, and 112.5 mph in the same service on May 10, 1893 setting a worlds speed record.
The engine was exhibited at the Chicago Worlds Fair in 1893 and returned to passenger service following this. In 1913 the NYC 999 was renumbered NYC 1086 and in 1920 was numbered NYC 1021.
NYC 999 was shopped with changes loosing her mahogany engine cab and re-equipped with 70" drive wheels replacing her 86" "high heeled slippers." Bob Butterfield the famous engineer said "her pulling power did not equal her speed...she was hard to start because her piston stroke was small relative to her great wheel diameter.
In 1933 at the Chicago Worlds Fair "Century of Progress" which featured the theme "Romance of Transportation" NYC 999 returned after 40 years and found herself exhibited with no less a companion than "reigning speed queen" the brand new 100 mph Burlinton Zephyr.
In 1948 - 1949 at the "Chicago Railroad Fair" - "Wheels-a-rolling" pageant the NYC 999 was again present on stage to steam before the crowds a full 55 years after her famous run. Also present to perform was the "Burlinton Zephyr" the "General" the "William Mason" and PRR 5313 Pennsylvania Railroad T1 4-4-4-4 the true "steam speed queen of all time" having often un-offically run near 140 mph a feat never acknowledged.
NYC 999 was retired from service in May 1952 along with most of the railroads steam locomotive fleet having an active service life from May 1893 to May 1952 for a service life of 59 years.
In 1962 the New York Central Railroad which saved no steam locomotives for posterity in an "out of character" move donated the NYC 999 to the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry.
Today the NYC 999 rests only yards from where she was exhibited as the world speed champion at the Chicago Worlds fair of 1893 and where she performed at the Chicago Worlds Fair of 1933 and where she resided on static display outdoors from 1968 to 1993 over 35 years outdoors in the elements.
NYC 999 has been exhibited on indoor display for 23 years with modern scientific historians quibbling over the technology that measured her world speed record.
NYC 999 is 123 years old today - she set her speed record 20 years before the RMS Titanic sank by striking an iceburg in the Atlantic Ocean. America - the United States was barely 100 years old there were only 44 states in the Union and Benjamin Harrison was President. The Spanish American War was in process. There was no electrical grid, radio, TV, airplanes, or automobiles and the railroad was the forefront of technology. General Custer had died on the Little Bighorn within recent memory the polar ice caps had only just been explored.
Think about that - and NYC 999 could run again today!
--------------------------------
CHARLES W. HOGAN - "There was no need to fear for the IRISH was drivin her!" CHARLES M. HOGAN's name appears on the payroll sheets of the railroad two weeks before President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. HOGAN began work as a waterboy for a section gang bossed by his father. As a young man he stood by the tracks near Rochester NY, and watched the seven black draped cars of Lincoln's funeral train pass by. HOGAN became a brakeman and went into locomotive service later becoming a locomotive engineer. Running between Syracuse and Buffalo, NY he occasionally pulled special trains for the Vanderbilts.
On May 10th, 1893 he was assigned to the westbound Empire State Express. Arriving late he was given the instructions to "take her bridle off." The special train was filled with officials timing the train. HOGAN kept a fast pace from Syracuse to Rochester and with the engine running well ran the 36 miles from Batavia to Buffalo at speed. A rising grade, then a level stretch of 14 miles, a slight downward grade followed into Buffalo, NY. Passing the curve outside of Batavia its a straight run with slight curve at Winspier Bridge.
According to the speed recorder and the testamony of two men with stopwatches in the buffet car the train covered one mile in 36 seconds, others at 38, 41, and 42 seconds. The 36 second mile was at a rate of 112 mph.
The run of the famous train also made the Empire State Express a household term throughout America.
Twenty years later, in 1913, during World War I the NYC 999 was running regular local freight service between Watertown and Carthage, NY. An aging company engineer CHARLES M. HOGAN pushed the railroad to save the locomotive as a museum piece rather than scrap her.
I saw NYC 999 outdoors in Chicago in 1964 - nearby was her Chicago Worlds Fair Pageant sister Burlington Zephyr. I saw NYC 999 again displayed indoors in Chicago in 2016, however, I was unsure that the museum did not consider her a "circus attraction" in a Green Energy Age that misunderstands everything that produces work by fossil fuel heat and coal. But then again Chicago celebrates Al Capone with his own museum - GEORGE H. DANIELS would understand the "carnival barker" fame of NYC 999 as he was the one who first put her there in the 1890's!
The Queen is dead! - NYC 999 - Long live the Queen!
Doc
Keep in mind oil-firing in steam locomotives was an answer to a real problem in certain parts of the country where oil was plentiful but coal was hard to get, or non-existant.
California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas spring to mind.
Paul MilenkovicBurning Bunker C in steam engine boilers was always a special case of using an otherwise useless byproduct of cheap oil. Commonly and traditionally, steam engines used coal, or if not coal, then wood.
Oil fuel was recognized as a good fuel for locomotives as early as the 1880s, and one of the earliest references to successful methods of burning it in a practical locomotive (more successful in some respects, in fact, than most of the modern high-pressure burner attempts!) dates from well before the 20th Century.
Among the advantages of oil fuel that are not usually 'discussed' were the relative longevity of the fuel in storage and the lack of ash handling issues (the ATSF long-distance records would have been more difficult if ash handling 'on the fly' had been required) A disavantage is that some oil contains high vanadium, which attacks the alloy composition in modern superheaters.
There is little question that oil-fired steam (either with heavy oil, as with 844 and 4449) and lighter oil (1522, if the reports by a couple of people associated with her on RyPN are accurate, and the European 8055) is just as good an experience as solid firing, albeit requiring a different set of skills and experience from running a stoker or wielding a scoop. We don't need political contests about 'right' and 'wrong' fuels, do we? De gustibus non disputandum est.
carnej1 Paul Milenkovic 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. How do you classify the Union Pacific GP9s (and Gas Turbines) that were modified to run on bunker oil? Does that invalidate all Bunker oil fueled Steam locomotives?
Paul Milenkovic 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.
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.
How do you classify the Union Pacific GP9s (and Gas Turbines) that were modified to run on bunker oil?
Does that invalidate all Bunker oil fueled Steam locomotives?
Yeah, I still can't "wrap my head" around burning natural gas in what used to be coal-fired power company boilers. You should save the light oil (Diesel) for trucks, gasoline for cars, natural gas for houses "in town", natural gas "condensates" (propane) for houses in the country, and run stationary and locomotive boilers on coal.
Burning Bunker C in steam engine boilers was always a special case of using an otherwise useless byproduct of cheap oil. Commonly and traditionally, steam engines used coal, or if not coal, then wood.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Irish eh? that puts a new slant on things! There is a really good beer store in Batavia, maybe that was a factor. They do have Guinnesss.
NYC 999 the engine New York Central chose to champion its efforts to set a high speed record was especially constructed for the job.
Public relations at the time gave us "The Empire State Express" the "Twentieth Century Limited." What better publicity stunt than to make newspaper headlines across the nation - and world. "New York Central and Hudson River Railroad service from New York City tops 100 mph speed!"
Story is that NYC's William Buchanan had the engine especially built with hand polished locomotive frame - 86" drive wheels - brass trimmed - gold leaf lettering and engine cab of fine mahogany woodwork.
After being carefully broken in and with several car and tipped off reporters - the locomotive with Irish engineer Charlie Hogan at the throttle pulled off 112 mph running slightly downgrade going west into Batavia, NY.
---------------------
This locomotive show piece and speed trophy was eventually turned into a dowdy local freight engine.
Now why would anyone want to save this "milk run" remnant of former glory in this inoquious condition. THE GLORY LACKS - GLORY!
Replica? If you build an exact example of a type such as the Tornado for example, it's not a replica. It has a consecutive serial number from the last A1 built back in the day. Why not build a new 999 and see what it will do?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
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
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????????
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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...)
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 cheaper.
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.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
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.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
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.
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.
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..
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
But was not the Flying Yankee re-engined with a 567 engine by the B&M during its long operating career?
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.