Discussions of preservation / restoration / replication in L&RP

Hello, All -

The following seven posts were buried in a thread regarding the preservation / restoration / replication of C&S 1006, and per previous admonishments from JBWX re changing topics – or at least subject lines – I thought the discussion warranted a thread of it's own.  Besides, stirring up discussions is what being a Curmudgeon is all about, and JBWX has likely been thinking of putting me on probation for being too mellow lately . . .    

Jason Midyette Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
> . . .  Not everything needs to operate and not every-
> thing needs to be rebuilt to someone's 21st century
> vision of what it "should" be. This is especially true
> of a unique artifact like C&S 1006.
>
> I am sorry, but in my view what has happened to
> 1006 shows a complete lack of respect for the
> artifact, its history and all those who worked on
> it before.

Gwenloco Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
> . . . when we acquired [1006,] our original intent
> was to add a few new pieces and repair this and
> that, put wheels under it, paint it and run it. When
> we started it didn't take long to realize that the
> frame was so unstable that it would most likely
> not support the body of the car as work continued.
> We were also pretty sure it would not support the
> heavier parts of the running gear, brakes or couplers.
> Based on this it was determined that a new "found-
> ation" (frame) would be required. The original was
> disassembled and each part measured and a draw-
> ing made. Then each part was made out of the same
> material as the original (oak and fir) and it was re-
> assembled using the same construction methods
> as the original, mortice and tenon with horizontal
> and longitudinal tension rods (no nails or screws).
> We then [re-] assembled the original frame
> and sent it to Como where the 1008 actually
> ran, it can be found on display in the round-
> house today for visitors to view early railroad
> wooden car construction.

Jason Midyette Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
> 1006 was in no danger whatsoever of becoming a
> "pile of rubble" (at least before it was taken apart).
>
> There WAS nothing about 1006's condition that
> warranted a full dismantling and replication style
> rebuild. I am quite familiar with 1006 as well as
> the construction and repair of wooden cars. I am
> by no means an expert, but several folks who are
> and have looked at 1006 saw no major issues with
> the car either.
>
> Taking a fully intact original artifact completely
> apart, throwing 90% of it in the trash and then
> rebuilding it how you think it should be done is
> the complete opposite of any definition of pre-
> servation. Performing the minor level of repairs
> that 1006 actually needed and then getting it
> somewhere where it could be displayed inside
> would have been the actual "highest level of pre-
> servation" possible for this once priceless and
> unique artifact . . .

nedsn3 Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
> Apologies this pointlessness has gone on way
> too long.

hank Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not to worry.  It seems like every time someone
> reports on a preservation and/or restoration pro-
> ject here we get lost in this argument. As predict-
> able as snow in Winter on Marshall Pass. Person-
> ally, I think it is always a waste of electrons as no-
> body ever seems to convince the other side of
> their position.  Deeply held beliefs about what is
> important + a refusal see the other side(s) of the
> question = deadlock. [Just like in "our" Congress.]
> I'll keep my own, personal opinion to meself and
> just wish success to all people who dare to take
> on one of these projects, whatever their biases.
>
> p.s.  Please don't let the sound & fury (signify-
> ing . . . ) stop you, any of you out there, from
> posting future updates on these.  I, for one,
> enjoy them.

Russo Loco Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
> I'll second that motion!!    
>
> IIRC, there was a LOOOOOONG discussion of
> preservation / restoration / replication (or repli-
> Kation) in L&RP several years ago that lasted
> through several issues.  I have the bound vol-
> umes of Eleanor P. covering March '86 through
> August '92, but it may take me a while to find
> the series.

nedsn3 Wrote (twice):
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have those too Russo; maybe that's why I get
> involved with these discussions.


Thanks for the motivation, Ned -

I have stayed up past my bedtime the past few days re-reading all eight years worth of Eleanor P., and I've found several relevant paragraphs worth quoting.  Here are the first two segments, from Mark Smith's first editorial in the premier issue of L&RP, March-April 1986:

" . . .  Preservation efforts range from small groups of people working diligently to save an old depot to large and sophisticated organizations with thousands of supporting members and hundreds of pieces of equipment."

" . . . Behind each restored locomotive, behind the beautifully [re-]created woodwork on an old trolley car or a depot, behind each train that runs, there are people who are hard-working and dedicated. There is an intelligent and generous spirit that finds fascination and satisfaction with this work."

It seems to me now that there was NOT a distinct series of articles re preservation / restoration / replication but rather an ongoing discussion in the background that permeated the entire magazine and occasionally rose to the surface in editorials and letters in response thereto.  The next specific discussion that I came across, though unfortunately focused on diseasels, was "Replicas vs. The Real Thing" by Bob Yarger, in the May-June 1987 issue:

" . . . Purist preservationists are bound to frown on replicas as 'phonies.'  But if their philosophy were followed strictly, it would eliminate the chance of ever watching C&O E8s in coal country, a set of black & red Rock Island F7s in Kansas or a Rutland RS-3 in Vermont, as the 'real' units from those railroads are long gone. What seems important now is not a philosophical discussion about replicas vs. the real thing, but to save as many early units and parts as we can."

Then there's Richard Steinheimer's unique perspective:

" . . . I think preserving railroad history with cameras can be as honorable as preserving the physical artifacts of railroading, and that the best interpretive programs will include both. Good photography, imaginatively presented, can be a tremendous asset to any preservation effort."

IMHO the above does NOT apply to Phraud-O-Graphs®.  OTOH, L&RP editor Mark Smith made the following astute observation in the May-June 1989 issue:

"The beauty of modelling is that it can also convey a railroad mood while allowing liberal use of the creative spirit — a situation that may be unworkable in the world of prototype preservation."

So apparently there's room for all of us NGDF'ers in the world of railway preservation – or at least on the fringes thereof . . .    

- Roosso

p.s. The May-June 1986 issue of L&RP features two dozen pages of Colorado narrow-gauge railroading. This begins with a portrait of Lindsay & Rosa Ashby on pages 22-23, contains a 14-page history of the C&TS, and includes a write-up of John Bush's cosmetic restoration of ex-D&RG #168 in Colorado Springs more than 30 years ago.  There's also roughly half a page on the beginnings of the restoration of the Como roundhouse on page 6 of the Nov-Dec. 1986 issue.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/2017 09:10PM by Russo Loco.