(Photos courtesy of the Colorado Railroad Museum and Denver Public Library, respectively)
If you were going to visit a railroad museum or ride on a steam train, which of the two engines above would interest you the most?
They are above-and-below photos of sister engines (D&RG Class 60, C-16). The photo on the top is what they looked like when they were built in 1882. The photo on the bottom is what they looked like after being modified over the course of half a century. If an engine was converted from burning coal to oil, typically the original diamond stack was replaced by a straight stack. Wooden pilots got replaced by boiler-tube pilots. Sand domes and headlights with decorative trim got replaced by plainer ones, and so on.
So, when those of us who work in museums or on tourist lines restore steam engines, choices are made regarding which time period to represent in the engine’s life. At some point, the debate begins. It typically goes something like this:
The response:
That may sound like a good argument, but it isn’t. The engine’s modifications aren’t original fabric. The “original fabric” (that diamond stack, or wooden pilot, or decorative sand dome, or headlight, or whatever) got tossed in the scrap pile decades ago in a railroad shop somewhere. It is not a breach of sentimentality to put the engine back to the way it was originally. Quite the opposite.
The straight stack and other later modifications don’t have to be discarded. They can be saved for future reference, or even put on display somewhere. A plaque can be put next to it explaining the evolution of steam engines and their technology from coal to oil, and so forth. But, the engine itself should be back the way it was built.
If you had the home of Leland Stanford (the first president of the Central Pacific RR), would you restore it to the way it was when he lived there, or to the way it was when some subsequent owner had it?
The response:
This is the “all-or-nothing” argument. For example, the FRA won’t allow us to operate with the original wrought-iron boiler, therefore we “can’t” restore the engine to its original appearance, and must choose some 20th-century appearance instead. That is simply not true. There is no law that says if we can’t restore everything on the engine to the way it was originally, then we are forbidden from making the rest of it look original.
Most people would never know whether the boiler is wrought iron or steel. Or, for that matter if it has a longer smoke box than the original, or the wrong tender. But, many people would realize that an engine built as a coal-burner in the 1800s probably did have a diamond stack, a wooden pilot, and some decorative trim on the domes. Putting those things on is the least we can do to honor the engine’s antiquity.
Engines that had a long working life inevitably wind up as a hodgepodge of miscellaneous parts, representing technology of various different time periods, stuck on there by a series of different shop foremen whose primary objective was to get the engine back in service. It no longer represents the technology of any one time period.
The “all-or-nothing” argument is misguided and illegitimate. First of all, it’s never going to be possible to restore an engine to precisely represent the technology of ANY particular time period of the steam era. There is always going to be a need to strike a balance between achieving originality and practicality, due to materials, safety concerns, and other considerations. Second of all, the goal should not be all-or-nothing; it should be to educate the public as to what an engine built in the 1800s looked like.
Is it possible to do that without some compromises? Probably not. So what? We should do the best we can, within the margins of safety and what’s reasonable. As a wise man once said, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
The response:
No one objects to building replicas. Do you have an extra million dollars handy to pay for one? Meanwhile, we have an existing engine. Putting on a diamond stack, box headlight, trim on the domes and a wooden pilot is a relatively low-cost project. Doing so will not cause detriment to the body of the engine. What it would do is pay homage to the engine’s origin.
The vast majority of steam engines still in existence were built in the 20th century. If we are blessed with having one of the relatively few that were built in the 1800s, why not venerate that engine’s heritage?
The response:
We agree. There is no need to go “Hollywood” or cartoonish. Don’t put anything on it that doesn’t match the original. Honor the engine and restore it with care and accuracy, based on solid photographic and engineering evidence.
The response:
Finally, an argument that makes sense. Money is not unlimited. But, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do the best we can to achieve the original look of the engine. Put on a diamond stack, wooden pilot, box headlight and some trim on the domes if that is what was there at first. If we can’t afford to put on a smoke box of the right length, or the right tender, or some other expensive item, that’s not the end of the world. We should come as close as we can to the original appearance with the funds available.
That doesn’t preclude tackling more expensive items at a future rebuilding, if funds become available then.
Meanwhile, if we are fortunate enough to have one of those rare gems - an engine that was built in the 1800s – we should not hide that fact by making it look like a 20th century engine.
What is one of the most frequent questions that people ask when they go to see an engine in a museum or ride behind it on a train? It is: “How old is that engine?” We don’t answer by saying, “It was most recently modified in 1935” do we? No. We answer with pride, “It was built in 1882.” That pride is fully justifiable. All we need to do now is act like it.