I have to agree on both points with one caveat.
The caveat first: I also don't consider adding a new boiler or tender tank a defilement of a historic locomotive as long as the work is documented and significant components are saved to permit reversibility of the artifact to its original condition.
Now there a several gotchas to this position, not the least of which is where do you keep the stuff being replaced by operational equivalents. Also there is the little issue of how to effect and pay for reversibility once the artifact is to be permanently retired.
The first issue might not be too bad as the items in question could be of interest as interpretive exhibits at the D&Sng, CT&S, CRRM or any of the "on-line" RGS museum locations. They'll just need some preparation and protection from the elements in their new home.
The last question is the easier of the two in that competent financial assistance should be easy to find - but you'll have to get a good financial planner to assist with your business plan.
It breaks out like this: A portion of all fees paid by supporters, authorized licensees (remember - there will be more money in licensed merchandise than you will ever see in fares), fare payers, etc. etc. should be held in a compound interest bearing escrow account against the day reversibility must be effected. Note these funds will be over and above those needed to keep the artifact operable and in good condition (operational funds (including scheduled costly repairs) must be budgeted as they would for any on-going business.) (Note 2 - An estimate of the cost of the reversibility option must be determined - this could be made easier by using itemized costs of the operational restoration as a guide.) Excess funds over and above the reversibility cost should be held to create a permanent endowment for a facility to house the retired artifact in perpetuity. Additional options like possible replication can also be considered - if the money materializes.
The positive aspect of all the "off scene financial planning" is that a good plan will make it easier for you to attract grants, bequests, and other funding to aid in your restoration efforts. It is also essential in determining fares and all other revenue fees that you will have to charge to support the venture.
It sounds like a lot, and it is, but as Dan Markoff stated earlier, the money is out there.
I also couldn't agree more with your statement about the apparent financial benefits to repatriating and restoring a "worn out", U.S. built locomotive from overseas. (This is a general comment, I believe your #315 project is a worthy effort.) First, it should be pointed out that many of the locomotives operating today were, pretty worn-out when they ended their original useful service lives. A restoration can still be placed into revenue service more inexpensively than something built new. As other have already pointed out - new drawings, patterns, etc. could easily cost more than the final product costs to manufacture. (You are a step ahead for the Maine Two Foot locomotives, many of the original construction drawings exist (like the entire BLW set for SR&RL #23) and locomotives B&SR 7 and 8 would be useful guides in building say an SR&RL #24.) "Non-historic", restored pieces would entail fewer historical preservation caveats than would, say a #315. Once in service, and with the appropriate business elements in place, restored pieces can start earning revenue that will help fund future museum initiatives including replication if so desired.
Whew ...
The bottom line is I agree and I agree.
Best Regards,
Glenn
