There is a perfecdtly valid reason for the 1915 appearance and not its original. In 1915, the locomotive was equqped with air-brakes and the ccompressors to operate them. It was equipped with an electric headligiht. It was equpped with more modern sanding euipment and safety-valve. All of which contribute to safe operation of period-piece passenger train that the public can ride in safey and still be authentic for the period chosen.
If it had been restored to original appearrance, it still would not have been original because of the need for air-brakes and an electric headlight.
careerrailI haven't seen anything from Euclid nor Overmad in the form of congratulations or praise for those Antonito Enginehouse machinists and mechanics who actaully got the thing running before the end of this operating season, when it's not supposed to pull trains regularly until May of 2020.
Read more carefully -- but, then again, you're right in that no amount of praise is too much for the people who actually did the work ... all of them.
And yes, too, that also goes for the people who keep the engine and the train running, and maintained.
The point was restricted only to the idea that, railfan or not, it's a fair question to ask why a restoration is made to a particular state or a particular era. I'd like to think that someone, somewhere, in a position of authority would give him a little actual rationale, rather than just disparaging him for assuming he's telling what they should have done (which I'll be among the first to assume is highly irritating in a number of ways, particularly when it comes from those who didn't help to those who did) or falling back on that old pathetic excuse 'the person with the gold (or the title) makes the rules'.
We had a very similar issue come up in Hudson River Heritage about restoring a historic property (the house at Rokeby) which has rooms built in the 1830s, with fireplaces, which were fitted with then-cutting-edge cannel-coal fireplaces of somewhat ugly design in the 1870s, then modified again for steam heat. At each stage, the historic importance of the property as a whole is different for different reasons. But if there is to be restoration, it has to be to some state, and other historic fabric has to be either modified or removed to get to that state. It is in that spirit that I understood Euclid's original inquiry to be, and it is why I, too, would be interested in, but not demand, any explanation the crew at Antonito might care to provide.
(Note that I have not, and will not, say a thing about how the restoration 'should' have been done, in the absence of anything from the shop that might indicate they didn't achieve what they were intending.)
The root problem that I detected with Euclid's original post is that he's a railfan. Ask any C & T S manager and they'll tell you that many railfans regularly descend on the property- but only to take photos or train watch. They don't buy train tickets, don't make contributions to restorations, don't show up for the volunteer work sessions, stand in unsafe places where trains move and then have to be chased off, don't add anything of value to the operation, but nevertheless want things to be according to how they think they should be. Some often feel they have the right to tell the managers how things ought to be done (a manager has told me exactly this), without having worked a single day on any railroad or without knowing why the tourist railroad operates its trains they way they do, and what it takes to run a railroad like this.
If the engine was instead restored to its 1883 appearance, people like Euclid would be asking why it's not being done to look like it did in 1915. I haven't seen anything from Euclid nor Overmad in the form of congratulations or praise for those Antonito Enginehouse machinists and mechanics who actaully got the thing running before the end of this operating season, when it's not supposed to pull trains regularly until May of 2020. They have the advantage of test running it now to get any bugs out so that by Memorial Day of next year and into the summer- they can expect trouble-free operations. Well done, men.
How about a pat on the back to that excellent woodworker and world-class restoration specialist who- with his team of men in an adjacent building, are restoring the period wooden cars to be pulled by this engine in a special Heritage Train? Then we'd have something "interesting to read even in a zombie thread".
As far as I'm concerned the people putting the money, sweat, love, and more than likely a little blood into a steam locomotive restoration have the right to do it however they please.
The only restoration I questioned was the restoration of the Texas, the locomotive that chased and caught the General during the Civil War. For some reason they restored it to it's appearance circa 1890, not the way it looked in 1862. I couldn't understand that at all, what's the point? But hey, it's their engine, they can do what they want.
careerrail EuclidWhy is this locomotive being restored to its 1915 appearance rather than its appearance as built in 1883? Engine 168 made its maiden voyage into Chama Yard on Monday September 30. It got there through the hard work of shop mechanics at Antonito and not because of people asking stupid and pointless questions such as why it's being rebuilt to resemble how it looked in 1915.
EuclidWhy is this locomotive being restored to its 1915 appearance rather than its appearance as built in 1883?
Engine 168 made its maiden voyage into Chama Yard on Monday September 30. It got there through the hard work of shop mechanics at Antonito and not because of people asking stupid and pointless questions such as why it's being rebuilt to resemble how it looked in 1915.
Asking about restoration to a particular era is neither 'stupid' nor 'pointless'; it's a perfectly legitimate technical question. The issue here is that this is almost certainly the wrong forum to raise it.
The professional historic preservation community on RyPN (to which Euclid belongs) is more likely to have 'inside knowledge' on why the restoration was done as it was, and is certainly a better place to pose any questions to a potentially understanding group. Of course the 'correct' thing for him to have done, long before posting anything of the sort, would be to do the homework to find out who was responsible for the work, quietly contact them privately, and ask for their reasons -- which I have no reason to believe, personally, would not have been given to him. In fact, I think if he were to do that now, since you've given him a big leg up on where to go to make contact, he'd get very interesting answers that it would be interesting to read even in a zombie thread.
Euclid Why is this locomtive being restored to its 1915 appearance rather than its appearance as built in 1883? Engine 168 made its maiden voyage into Chama Yard on Monday September 30. It got there through the hard work of shop mechanics at Antonito and not because of people asking stupid and pointless questions such as why it's being rebuilt to resemble how it looked in 1915.
Why is this locomtive being restored to its 1915 appearance rather than its appearance as built in 1883?
Euclid MidlandMike The 1915 rebuilding was probably its last, so the present efforts could reuse most of what is on the loco, which would be more authentic that reproducing old hardware. That may be the reason, but I am just wondering if that is the actual reason behind the decision. Maybe the rebuilers prefer the 1915 appearance, for example. I have not followed the news on this rebuild, but I would think the people invovled would have explained their decision for the appearance. I might contact them about it.
MidlandMike The 1915 rebuilding was probably its last, so the present efforts could reuse most of what is on the loco, which would be more authentic that reproducing old hardware.
The 1915 rebuilding was probably its last, so the present efforts could reuse most of what is on the loco, which would be more authentic that reproducing old hardware.
That may be the reason, but I am just wondering if that is the actual reason behind the decision. Maybe the rebuilers prefer the 1915 appearance, for example. I have not followed the news on this rebuild, but I would think the people invovled would have explained their decision for the appearance. I might contact them about it.
Perhaps what's really important here is the locomotive is getting restored at all, becoming one more addition to the stable of operating narrow gauge steamers and a rare and early one at that. If you haven't followed the news as you've said, you may not be aware that in the building adjacent to the shop, two wooden coaches (with one more they will bring in thereafter) are also being restored so that #168 gets to pull a period train. These cars, with two more down at Chama nearly ready to go, include some of the very cars that the engine handled in its service years, be it 1883 or 1915. Good for you to contact them. We should all contact them- with donations toward this significant and expensive project that is being done so thoroughly that they plan for a service life of 45 years.
Grant for $10,000 will complete restoration work on an 1883-built Denver & Rio Grande locomotive
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/11/10-trains-preservation-award-2018
Brian Schmidt, Editor, Classic Trains magazine
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.