Regarding the "grandfather's axe" and preservation

Sorry to open up this can of worms again - but another post regarding 496 got me thinking...

D&RGW replaced boilers. They replaced cabs, tenders, cylinder chests, smokeboxes, and fireboxes. I would venture most of the surviving D&RGW narrow gauge locomotives had significant amounts of "non-original" metal when they were sold/donated to museums and preservationists. What percentage of an engine like 491 was "original" when it left D&RGW ownership? I understand the argument for keeping historic artifacts as original as possible - but considering D&RGW did not keep things original, what is the logic here? That these locomotives were not historical artifacts until they left the ownership of D&RGW and that"original condition" would refer to the date of sale?

Yeah - I sometimes have a hard time seeing a new cab or tender tank being made for a loco like 168. But then I remember that that cab or tender tank was not the original one to begin with...

-Kevin

View my HOn3 and railroad themed creations on Shapeways!
[www.shapeways.com]