Here is my problem with people being against replacing anything when trying to preserve an engine or a car.
These are machines we are talking about, they were designed to have every single part capable of being replaced, if something wore out, and they still needed the machine to do their job, the railroads would replace something. Now in some cases it was too expensive to do that, so they scrapped it instead (490, 496) and would use the parts to keep other machines going. Now in the preservation world, we run into a problem, this stuff is no longer built and operated regularly, so the parts have sentimental value yes. However, I would argue, if you want something to operate, if you wants something to run, you need to be willing to have anything on that machine replaced. Because in order to operate reliable, and safely, it needs to be maintained, and maintenance means replacing parts when they break or wear out. If your not willing to do that, then you should not support operating steam locomotives and historic cars at all, because operating them will over time take its toll, depending on how much they operate. Are we only willing to show people steam locomotives and historic cars in a static, dead, junkyard setting? Or is it of greater value to have them operating, carrying people, and doing the job they were built for?
Now, if you want a locomotive to operate, but still want it to be a truly historic piece, you can follow the methods the railroad would have used. You can follow the standard practices of the railroad at a specific time (so long as those practices are safe), you can for example, rivet together a tender. Who is really going the know the difference (other then those following the project) that a riveted tender is of new construction or old. The same methods are followed, so the practice is kept alive. Same can be done for boiler work, cab construction. These are all things that over time wear out, and if you want to operate something, but keep it historic, following old methods is the best way to to that.
Its also important, in some cases, to remember that history did not stop with the abandonment of steam History is still being made. Some here look back to the early days of the C&TS as history, and they are not wrong in doing so. You can't only look at something at see what it was during its "steam days" and say that is all that matters. Georgetown Loop 40 is a good example, its a locomotive thats well traveled, been to Guatamala and El Salvador in its regular life, but been to Central City, Georgetown/Silver Plume, Durango, and Skagway Alaska since. Since it showed up in Colorado, its been changed and adapted for its new life, but its still the 40 to everyone. Some parts of it (not many) still date back to 1920 when it was built. 111 however is completely different, I don't think a single piece of the 111 is actually from the 111 when built. The Frame and Saddle is off the 116, most of the valve gear is from 5 or 6 different locomotives from the class. The Boiler is of new construction, the boiler before that was off 115 if I remember correctly. The Headlight is different then the one seen in pictures when it was in service. But The Number that was painted on it when it came up to the States was 111, thats what she is, thats the locomotive she is. Thats what everyone remembers her as, and in the end, thats what matters, not what parts are on the engine.
Also, for the record, 40, 44, and 111 have at this point, now spend more then half their lives in Colorado. 40 turns 100 in 2020, and nearly half that time will have been spent in Colorado. Despite her origins, she is Historic to Colorado now, she is part of Colorado Railroading now.
These are of course, only my feelings, and hopefully despite my rambling, I put things together in a suspenseful way.
