Operational or Preservation
| August 10, 2017 09:34AM |
nedsn3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good pictures Richard, thanks, that pretty much
> tells the whole story. Reminds me of a wood Lyman
> boat that I almost bought last year. At 2' it
> looked good, but when my finger went through the
> dry rotted keel, it answered all questions. Wood
> boats, like wood railroad cars and wood houses and
> trestles, can, and should be, be maintained, but
> that means replacing decayed or otherwise failed
> parts, or in museum terms, "original fabric".
> We're anxiously awaiting more pictures of 1008!
> Ned
If everyone followed this logic, then I guess Philadelphia needs to throw out some "decayed and failed parts" and restore a certain bell so it can be used again.
I think one of the main points that Mr. Midyette made is being over looked. Not everything needs to be made to be operational. Thanks to the efforts of the CRRM and now Mr. Farmer and his team, we will have two operational C&S cabooses. I believe Mr. Midyette was saying that maybe we should try and preserve the only original C&S caboose remaining in the world.
Also, I need to disagree with one of the other posters. Using an artifact is NOT preserving it. It’s using it up. However, what it does do is preserves the experience of operating the artifact and educates people about its purpose; and this is very important as well. As an example, Imagine if steam locomotives were only “preserved” in museums and none were operational. Well, soon many people would lose interest in Steam locomotive at all and soon that would result in NONE being preserved.
The UK has many examples of operating locomotives but you don’t see them throwing a fire into Stephenson’s “Rocket” and making it Operational because “That’s what the Railways would have done”. Instead, they built a replica of the Rocket.
I believe there is not only room for Operational and Preservation but I believe they are BOTH necessary.
Decayed and failed parts that are no longer operational ???? Or a direct connection to our history ???
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good pictures Richard, thanks, that pretty much
> tells the whole story. Reminds me of a wood Lyman
> boat that I almost bought last year. At 2' it
> looked good, but when my finger went through the
> dry rotted keel, it answered all questions. Wood
> boats, like wood railroad cars and wood houses and
> trestles, can, and should be, be maintained, but
> that means replacing decayed or otherwise failed
> parts, or in museum terms, "original fabric".
> We're anxiously awaiting more pictures of 1008!
> Ned
If everyone followed this logic, then I guess Philadelphia needs to throw out some "decayed and failed parts" and restore a certain bell so it can be used again.
I think one of the main points that Mr. Midyette made is being over looked. Not everything needs to be made to be operational. Thanks to the efforts of the CRRM and now Mr. Farmer and his team, we will have two operational C&S cabooses. I believe Mr. Midyette was saying that maybe we should try and preserve the only original C&S caboose remaining in the world.
Also, I need to disagree with one of the other posters. Using an artifact is NOT preserving it. It’s using it up. However, what it does do is preserves the experience of operating the artifact and educates people about its purpose; and this is very important as well. As an example, Imagine if steam locomotives were only “preserved” in museums and none were operational. Well, soon many people would lose interest in Steam locomotive at all and soon that would result in NONE being preserved.
The UK has many examples of operating locomotives but you don’t see them throwing a fire into Stephenson’s “Rocket” and making it Operational because “That’s what the Railways would have done”. Instead, they built a replica of the Rocket.
I believe there is not only room for Operational and Preservation but I believe they are BOTH necessary.
Decayed and failed parts that are no longer operational ???? Or a direct connection to our history ???
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
488 stops for water at Los Pinos tank on closing day Oct. 1979. Photo courtesy Don Richter
The NGDF was started by Don Richter and is currently operated in his memory by Nathan Holmes and others. Others who have contributed to the upkeep of this board are (in no particular order): Charles McCandless, Everett Lueck, Ted Wilton, Cole Adams, James Bane, John Moellmer, Jon Bentz, Linn Moedinger, lloyd lehrer, Rod Jensen, John Craft, Steven Forney, Herb Kelsey, Bill Ramaley, Russ Sperry (El Russo Loco), Josh McNeal, John West, Jim Armstrong, Bob Bergstrom, Greg Scholl, Blake Forbes Doug van Veelen and Mark Fuller.