Re: 168 Today

Good points Brian.

I don't know if it ever had a pneumatic door and, if it did, it would likely post-date the era of the restoration.

My background is actually in historic preservation.
One frequent point of confusion is the specific, and often slight, differences between a restoration and a rehabilitation. This usually pertains to buildings, but could be applied to other things.

A restoration is very strict. If you restore a building, you pick a date and make the building exactly as it was on the date in question. This can involve the removal of utilities, safety equipment, mechanical systems, and later additions or alterations that could be historically significant or useful in their own right. Strict restorations are very rare and are seldom seen outside of a museum environment. A good example of how a restoration can go awry is a historic home in Virginia called Montpelier. This was the home of President James Madison in the 19th Century. In the mid 2000s, the house was restored to its early 19th century appearance to interpret the period when it was occupied by the Madison family. The problem is that the restoration necessitated the removal of about 2/3 of the building, which had been added by the DuPont family while they owned it at the beginning of the 20th century. The DuPont era additions were historic in their own right and provided significant usable space. The landscape surrounding the building was not restored, and is still in its DuPont configuration. The goal of interpreting the building as it was in the Madison era was achieved, but at the expense of the tangible history of the DuPont era.

A rehabilitation usually has similar goals to a restoration, and they often have the same appearance at the end, at least to the untrained eye (nearly everyone). A rehabilitation allows more changes to the building or object in question, in order to accommodate contemporary standards of living, safety, or use requirements. A rehabilitation of a 200 year old house, for example, would allow for the installation of air conditioning, indoor plumbing, electricity, etc. but would maintain as close to the appearance of a restoration as possible. A rehabilitation would still include such things as historically accurate paint colors, original windows, doors, & hardware, restoration of missing or damaged features, repair of historic materials instead of replacement, use of plaster instead of drywall, etc.

With regard to #168, it looks like a project leaning strongly toward the restoration end of the spectrum. I assume some deviations will be allowed, at least for the sake of safety, such as a radio in the cab. I don't know if it would actually be possible to complete a strict restoration of a historic locomotive and have it meet contemporary safety standards & insurance requirements. You could certainly get very close, but i don't know if it could be run exactly as it was. Of course, this is a rabbit hole leading to something that could be far more nitpicky than rivet counting. I'm thrilled to see 168 being brought back to life, I'm even happier that the process has been so openly shared, and I look forward to seeing it in person. I'm also looking forward to reading accounts of its performance and what the crew members who run it think of it, as well as the folks in the shop who maintain it. A huge amount of work has been accomplished, and there a a ton more to go, even after the return to service has been completed.

Dave