Re: RGS #20

hank Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> If I understand correctly, the argument is that
> nothing should be changed from the condition of
> the loco on either may 15, 1952 (offical
> abandonment) or November 30th, 1951 (last use of
> #20) on RGS. Aparently changes made before
> wichever of those dates is the magic one are
> historic but ones made after are vandalism.

Unless you are trying to restore it back to F&CC days. But then I suspect that we both are arguing the same side of the argument.
>
> I'm not sure though, my mind doesn't work that
> way.

I'm d*mn sure mine doesn't... especially when the ones screaming "historic fabric" are a bunch of yahoos who NEVER worked a day on the railroad (probably they are all unemployed art-major types). They jawboned their way into various commissions and societies with a resume straight out of the "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bs" school.

Frankly, in my not-so-humble opinion, the ones who are willing to get their hands dirty ought to be the ones who call the shots. We need more people like Linn Moedinger, Earl Knoob, John Bush and the like, and fewer pompous officious officials who have NO CLUE about how a railroad worked, or why it worked the way it worked, let alone how it SHOULD work. (end rant)

Your humble servant,

Bill Daniels
Santa Rosa, California