I love this debate. First let me say that the credit goes to lots of people for the restoration, recreation, model, or whatever you want to call it. Chris, Richie, Joe, Brendan, Scott, and Kelly all played major roles in the job, along with other guys who helped as needed. As usual with all our folks, they spent a lot of time ensuring that the job was done correctly. It was an expensive job, mainly due to replicating the original while still having the advantages of seamless construction. Unless something other than water is put in the tank, it should be corrosion free forever. I applaud the CRRM for their willingness to do the job right.
Of course it seems the debate rages as to what right is. My opinion is that the right thing to do is to try to balance all factors and make an informed and rational decision that satisfies the greatest number of points of a good collection/restoration policy. I can assure you that the CRRM and Strasburg consulted constantly on what should and should not be done, right down to the Gorilla Glue used on the mortise and tenon joints on the frame.
At the end of the day, the only accurate historical artifact is one that is removed from active service and stored in perfect conditions with no alterations and lots of documentation. This means no cleaning, painting, dusting, or anything else. To do anything else is a compromise, but with a rational thought process, compromises are not always bad things. The reality is that most of the equipment currently preserved has been severely compromised and not all of those compromises have been thoughtful. What we are left with is usually a piece of stuff with all sorts of undocumented compromises and typically a whole bunch of people with different opinions about what should be done.
Some of the decisions are easy. The half-flange issue on #346 referred to in another post was an easy decision because the CRRM wanted #346 to run. If the engine was to be repaired to proper operating tolerances where the drivers would not run into the firebox and equalizing gear, it needed blind drivers to negotiate the curves. It physically was not possible to get around the curves without the wheels having more lateral than there was room for or the wheelbase being rigid to a greater arc than the curve. This was rather strongly supported by the fact that it was built with blind drivers. Additionally, after talking at length with Bob Richardson one day in Orbisonia, he speculated that the C&S track was so light and wiggly that blind drivers would tend to derail, and the rail was light enough to move out of the way if the half-flanges required it. Rail does move. Jackson told me that after the first post D&RGW rebuilding of the Silverton high line, there was an issue with lead wheels wanting to climb the rail because the track was so rigid.
All of this in the for-what-it-is-worth file. I can't wait to see the tender painted and latched onto #346.
