Kevin K Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nedsn3 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Good pictures Richard, thanks, that pretty much
> > tells the whole story. Reminds me of a wood
> Lyman
> > boat that I almost bought last year. At 2' it
> > looked good, but when my finger went through
> the
> > dry rotted keel, it answered all questions.
> Wood
> > boats, like wood railroad cars and wood houses
> and
> > trestles, can, and
should be, be maintained,
> but
> > that means replacing decayed or otherwise
> failed
> > parts, or in museum terms, "original
> fabric".
> > We're anxiously awaiting more pictures of 1008!
> > Ned
>
> If everyone followed this logic, then I guess
> Philadelphia needs to throw out some "decayed and
> failed parts" and restore a certain bell so it can
> be used again.
>
> I think one of the main points that Mr. Midyette
> made is being over looked. Not everything needs to
> be made to be operational. Thanks to the efforts
> of the CRRM and now Mr. Farmer and his team, we
> will have two operational C&S cabooses. I believe
> Mr. Midyette was saying that maybe we should try
> and preserve the only original C&S caboose
> remaining in the world.
>
> Also, I need to disagree with one of the other
> posters. Using an artifact is NOT preserving it.
> It’s using it up. However, what it does do is
> preserves the experience of operating the artifact
> and educates people about its purpose; and this is
> very important as well. As an example, Imagine if
> steam locomotives were only “preserved” in
> museums and none were operational. Well, soon many
> people would lose interest in Steam locomotive at
> all and soon that would result in NONE being
> preserved.
>
> The UK has many examples of operating locomotives
> but you don’t see them throwing a fire into
> Stephenson’s “Rocket” and making it
> Operational because “That’s what the Railways
> would have done”. Instead, they built a replica
> of the Rocket.
>
> I believe there is not only room for Operational
> and Preservation but I believe they are BOTH
> necessary.
>
> Decayed and failed parts that are no longer
> operational ???? Or a direct connection to our
> history ???
> [attachment 41948 Bell.jpg]
This is a familiar argument and one that has no simple or right answer. I used to be involved in Civil War reenacting and as a general rule we didn't bring real artifacts onto the battlefield due to wear and tear (and the danger of older weapons being flawed).
More and more we see reproductions on the rails... A good case in point is 4-4-0 #17, the "York" on the former Northern Central out of New Freedom, PA operated by "Steam into History." The same will hopefully soon be said about RGS #36.
That said, wood rots and metal rusts. And while decay may resonate with photographers and artists, it doesn't attract the general public. I don't know how you preserve something with progressive rot or rust. Not everything needs to be operational, but sustaining a general public interest often requires it. While we as railfans fundamentally appreciate the intrinsic value of anything that touched the narrow gauge, that just isn't universally the case. These are not Roman ruins...a rotting caboose is not likely to inspire the way a restored-to-new one is among the public.
