Re: Preservation/Restoration/Rehabilitation

John -- you wrote: "The fact that the new tender logo inside that rectangle causes me to ask: Was this designed and applied with full knowledge and cooperation of the people charged with the responsibility of maintaining the historical integrity? Or was it done on a whim? I don't know, but the answer would be telling."

John, maybe you didn't see my Sept. 4 post on the NGDF which I think provided the "answer" by saying, perhaps too subtly: "REVENUE EQUIPMENT. About the only time this category becomes a problem is when a piece of historical equipment is used in revenue service and is, by contract, under the control of the operator and its employees -- 489 being the instant case. Neither the Friends nor SHPO are involved, and I'd suggest that's the way it ought to be. Yes, I think 489 is garish, and I'll probably mention it to the management at CTSMC at an appropriate time, and you guys can do the same. (Of course, my preference is for the "bug" herald, but let's not go there)."

Then on Sept. 5 in reply to a posting you made on the very same question I wrote: "Just let someone in CTSMC management know what you think. I'd imagine they are already aware of the need to tighten up standards. If that doesn't work (say by next spring), then a letter to the Commission might be appropriate. I sure hope no one thinks having SHPO put its nose in the tent would help."

Did you find these two replies unclear or inadequate, or did you simply not see them, or what?