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.
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.
When it comes to prices collectors will pay for cars - original always fetches higher prices.
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.
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, to
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…