BRHSLIST
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: [CBQ] Nebraska Zephyr damaged at IRM

To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: [CBQ] Nebraska Zephyr damaged at IRM
From: Bob Webber <no17@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:22:00 -0500
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
Delivered-to: archives@nauer.org
Delivered-to: mailing list CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=lima; d=yahoogroups.com; b=QIOSTIqXrLcIQW8ed8A0oBJGjEdA/nHz7GvH9vjRvOoTxnK3Qe+/CLHbqQQUjRTs4aTvXNH6cV8NHWM9wiKfrsI0lPutYjEKlfEvJJXydVfoBWH9pXjb0jx3SOdj0QYr;
In-reply-to: <20050921153421.NWME4982.ibm56aec.bellsouth.net@mail.bellso uth.net>
List-id: <CBQ.yahoogroups.com>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Mailing-list: list CBQ@yahoogroups.com; contact CBQ-owner@yahoogroups.com
References: <20050921153421.NWME4982.ibm56aec.bellsouth.net@mail.bellsouth.net>
Reply-to: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Sender: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Well, sure.  And the maintenance needed for the Frisco Dec would 
take, at most a day at any steam era back shop or even a well 
equipped roundhouse.

The new boiler for the locomotive in Monticello took over 2 years to 
be built (admittedly as a filler project) - whereas, whole 
locomotives "in the day" were built in a few days.  Restoration is 
always a bit tougher as well - witness the photos in the Traintech 
book of the Flying Yankee job where they substituted wood for 
corroded  stainless steel ( it had been kept damp for years by the 
insulation and masonite) in order to build up to the width 
needed.  Some skills, techniques and  materials are just plain hard to come by.

Then you have the issues of safety, health and pollution.  It is not 
unusual to see locomotive servicing sites on superfund lists.  I 
think a BN fueling and servicing area in Montana is STILL causing 
problems after repeated attempts at mitigation.  When you add the 
issues with asbestos, OSHA, EPA, etc., things become a bit tougher 
yet.  Then you have the issues that made it impossible to allow the 
Eureka to attend (as an operational entity) the Durango Railfest - 
according to the FRA regulations (as a result of the Gettysburg RR 
incident), the tubes have to be pulled and replaced, regardless of 
how new they are or how little used they are.  Now, at a well stocked 
roundhouse, that job would not be expensive nor time consuming.  The 
exact opposite is true today.

It is now estimated to take upwards of $1M to get a steam engine 
completely overhauled and ready to run.  And that isn't one of those 
hulks that you see behind a museum under tarps either.

The bottom line is that it costs a lot to complete such projects. So 
as tax time comes, remember you can always use a tax 
deduction.  Also, this sort of thing goes a long way to explaining 
the archive situation as well.  museums now figure that, before they 
accept a piece of equipment for display, they need $X per foot for 
display track and another $x per foot for  yearly maintenance and 
another $x per foot for cosmetic restoration.  It's all broken down 
into a rather unromantic nuts and bolts dollars and sense 
(intentional).  That means if the BRHS had a Q E unit, the IRM would 
need to have raised - before they even think about accepting the 
donated locomotive - that first $X per foot (and a E-unit is quite long).

The same goes for archival space.  Before ANY institution is going to 
look at an archive, they are going to want money up front.  And, it 
is VERY rare these days that that institution will not have as a firm 
condition in the contract, that there ARE no conditions.  That is, if 
they feel so inclined, they can throw the collection out, piece it 
out or sell it.  Without obligation.  Once it is in their "hands", it 
is theirs to do with as they feel.  So if that institution already 
HAS a press kit from the inaugural run of the first Denver Zephyr, 
they will likely part with the BRHS "duplicate" (as an example 
only).  They also will require a yearly maintenance fee.

So, those who decry the absence of an archive, think about that, and 
the costs of such a thing.  And the potential for loss.  There are 
alternatives of course, but they take time to come together and the 
right circumstances have to all fall together.  But such things are 
not impossible, they just require a lot of hard work a lot of time, a 
lot of inventiveness and a lot of drive.

At 10:34 AM 9/21/2005, you wrote:
> > Photos of the damage show the corners of the cars involved torn back
> > about a foot.  On sheathed cars, that would be a relatively easy
> > fix.  With pre-war Budds, I'm not so sure.  And, I'm not sure if the
> > museum has anyone available for shot-welding.  This is one of those
> > things that can appear to be a small amount of damage that can
> > actually be quite expensive to repair.
>
>Isn't it strange how 'improvements' in technology actually make some 
>things harder?  50 years ago it would have been relatively easy and 
>inexpensive to repair that damage on the cars...
>
>Cheers!
>
>Jan

Bob Webber 




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/8ZCslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>