I believe shelter for preserved equipment will become critical in about ten years, as we baby boomers age out of the picture. Subsequent generations simply do not share our enthusiasm for preserved rail equipment and are not likely to maintain it. Thus, we need to make it as easy as possible for them to do so. It is almost absurd today to spend $100,000 hiring people to restore a displayed locomotive and not put it under cover. We need to do what is best for the artifact, not the train geeks who complain of not being able to photograph it.
Once under cover, restored equipment requires minimal care. A roof is good, a building better, and, of course, a climate-controlled building is best, though that's not likely for much of what's been saved. Probably most endangered are the park locomotives that have been corroding for the last 60-plus years, yet most can be given a proper cosmetic restoration by volunteers at reasonable cost. We only spent around $4000 on CVR 4-6-0 220 in Vermont, yet did all the difficult things to remove and arrest corrosion (axle journals, smokebox, firebox, ashpan, tender tank, etc.) and made it look presentable. This was possible because it had been under shelter since 1972. Most of the rust occurred in the prior 15 years it sat uncovered, though there was some exterior rust caused mostly by condensation.
I'd really like to know more about the reuse of materials from buildings being torn down, that would otherwise go to scrap. The roofs of big-box buildings have trusses that would probably work well for equipment shelters, for instance. Near C&TS country, there is/was a cooling shed for reefer cars at Blanca that should work well for car storage. I've been told, however, that no architect or engineer would sign off on such reuse for buildings accessible to the public due to their liability insurance. Who here can elaborate more on that?
Bob Yarger
