Hi Keith and all,
I appreciate your thoughtful post on the "Historic Fabric" issue. I find a real problem with the CSRM vs use when it comes to mobile equipment.
First is definition. A building or structure is stationary. It will not move and is considered physically fixed in one location. If you want to keep a door with a circular cut for the latch, so be it. If you want to keep a roundhouse or shop physically fixed at a particular date, have at it (I doubt if the CSRM has done this with the former Sacramento Shops, at least they hadn't in 1991). I truly doubt, though that the people working at the CSRM would like to go back to 1868 and work with hand or steam powered-belt driven tools while working by lamplight with wood stoves. (Oh FOAM on)
I see Railroad equipment, as well as any other mobile objects, as different. Why? because due to their movement there is friction, where there is friction there is wear, where there is wear there is replacement. Let's take the C&S No. 74 for example (or RGS 42 or D&RGW 318 or SP 9). If these locomotives had never been retired and were still in service would there be any "Historic" outcry if new frames were made to prolong their lives? No. Would there have been any Historic gnashing of teeth if the boilers were replaced as a consequence of age and wear? No. Would there have been a historic tearing of clothes or wearing of black armbands if the shoes and wedges were discarded and new ones made? No. Maintenance like that would be a part of the regular maintenance cycle of the machine. Would there be weeping and wailing for Railroads to use Petroleum based lubricants over Tallow or Whale Oil? No. So why is the issue of making new parts to old spec's such a bugaboo? It shouldn't be. It should be welcomed as a means to preserve and lengthen the lifespan of these fine machines.
Nothing on the Railroad remains constant. There are constant upgrades and rebuildings as technology moves (or in the past tense "moved") ahead. Would anybody today want to go back to Autos with Oak Spoked wheels and Oak body framing? With all of the loonies on the road today, Give me my seat belt and air bag.
The same goes with Railroad equipment. We went from Straight Air to Vacuum to Westinghouse brakes within a relatively short space of time. Shall we remove these safety features from early equipment and use only Locomotive and hand brakes? No.
I guess that the way that I figure the difference is that a building is a fixed physical plant. Railroad equipment, for all its complexity is still nothing more than a tool. The railroad when it is all said and done is empirically nothing more than a way to provide the service of moving goods, livestock or people from point A to Point B. It is therefore nothing more than a tool that is used as a conveyance from point of origin to point of destination. Tools wear out, tools break, tools need to be fixed, yup, the George Washington's Axe again. The difference is that when properly documented there is nothing non-historic about it. It is just necessary to operate this equipment rather than to let it stand and rot or decay into its elemental components, those being cellulose and iron oxide (for the Rot example look at the poor C-16's in Salt Lake City or at Cimmaron)
In my opinion, those who use the "Historic Fabric" dodge are just saying "It's too much for us to fix properly, so we're going to leave this bucket of bolts sit so people can look at it." As a museum, they can do that, as a business, it is stupid to not utilize the assets that you have.
Yes, the Railroad is a tool devised by Humans. It is a fascinating and wonderful tool and the subject of many stories, legends and a tool that opened many otherwise inaccessible areas of this and other countries, but after it is all said and done it is still a tool. It is a tool just like any other means of conveyance that needs qualified people to operate, repair and dispatch it.
As for what is happening with park locomotives and equipment... don't get me started on that one.
Rick
