Box Car 67 - Official Work Thread

[Philip Marshall]

Restore it in a B&SR car and we need to interpret why there is a B&SR car on the WW&F which it never interchanged with.

Well said, Steve.

I think having the car painted for the B&SR would actually be useful as a way to introduce visitors to the larger story of the Maine Two-Footers, and how their histories were inter-related. Even without an interchange, the WW&F and B&SR certainly swapped equipment from time to time. WW&F engines 5 and 8 were ex-B&SR, and the fact that coach 3 ended up on the B&SR (in partial exchange for engine no. 5) is why it's still around today, just as No. 9 would not have survived if it stayed on the SR&RL. The Two-Footers didn't exist in isolation from one another. (Even the hermit-like Monson RR briefly considered purchasing a railcar from the SR&RL after 1935, but declined the offer.)

I'm reminded of a photo I saw in Model Railroader magazine sometime in the 1980s of Dave Frary and Bob Hayden's HOn30 Carrabasset & Dead River RR. They had a boxcar lettered for the WW&F, and to explain its presence on the C&DR they invented a fictional history in which the C&DR had purchased equipment from the WW&F after abandonment and just hadn't gotten around to repainting it yet.

The only difference here is that our boxcar is full scale, and there is no need to resort to fictional alternate histories.

[James Patten]

I proposed "counterfeiting" the boxcar into a WW&F car because the original railroad would have painted over the number and lettering and given it a new number.

Our mission statement is preservation of WW&F first, and the other Maine two footers second.  So I'm not opposed to a B&SR boxcar in B&SR lettering on the property.  But to keep the B&SR number without the lettering seem like taking the easy way out.

[Alan Downey]

As John suggested, the question is how do we fit a decidedly BS&R boxcar into the mission of preserving and continuing the history of the WW&FRy. Up to now, nearly every piece of equipment which has has come to the museum has been adopted into the all time WW&F numbering scheme, and lettered as such. Coach 8, and #10 exemplify this methodology, as they were given the "next in series" number to acknowledge their joining the fleet in the modern era (and never having been WW&F equipment previously), but given them a place in the overall history of the railway. This seems like a good and practical way of meeting our mission while not being limited exclusively to original or replica equipment.

Since our stated mission is to preserve and present the WW&F, it could be somewhat of a distraction from that mission to start representing other railroads simultaneously.  And it seems like we've made it a point to differentiate ourselves from the other Maine 2ft museums by our steadfastness in presenting the WW&F exclusively. Seeing a B&SR boxcar on WW&F home rails might give John Q. Public the impression that the two lines interchanged, and we would need to make sure that we adequately explained and interpreted the reality of the situation. Along those lines, photo freights have been mentioned as being spiced up with the inclusion of a B&SR boxcar. I'd suggest that we would be doing ourselves a disservice by including a single interloping boxcar in a string of WW&F equipment, as charter photos are some people's only interaction or experience with us.

I think Stephen's point about interpretation is right on. No matter which way we decide to present the boxcar, we need to make sure that we adequately present it's history. But I would suggest that it is easier to explain the past history of a WW&F numbered car, than explain the lack of interchange between the 2 footers and the boxcar's place at the museum. I think a great way to stay true to our mission, and to 67's history would be to letter it as WW&F and give it a "next in series" number- but create a display of photographs and interpretive text along the lines of the fantastic TCDA display. This could hang on the inside, or outside the boxcar when not in use, and allow visitors to the car barn to see 67's full story.

Just my two cents!

[Keith Taylor]

I would be willing to bet that not one visitor in a thousand would ask why there was a B&SR box car at the museum anymore than they would ask if the WW&F would have had a Plymouth internal combustion locomotive. I have no issue with replicas...but I do take issue with taking an historic artifact and passing it off as someting it is not as contrary to our mission as a museum.
Keith

[Jeff Schumaker]

I feel it should be painted and lettered as a B&SR boxcar.

To add more fuel to the fire, I've read somewhere that the original paint scheme was gray with RED lettering, not black.

Jeff S.

[Wayne Laepple]

Grey with red lettering. Cool! That's even better!!

[Mike Fox]

Renumbering it would be doing a disservice to our B&SR fans, several of which are members. Several of us are excited to have such an unrestored original piece from the RR. But the ultimate decision will be up to the board. I would suggest though, if renumbering is done, that the original name and number be displayed below the new number, at the bottom of the siding, saying "NEW-B&SR#67-1906,REBUILT-WW&FRy#321-2016" in small letters, 2 inch or so.

[John McNamara]

What if we painted it our customary red and labeled it simply "67" without any railroad name at all? It would not look disruptive in photo freights and would look consistent with our railway, but we would not be faking anything. Anyone observant enough to note the lack of a railroad name would be knowledgeable enough to appreciate the history of the car when they inquired about it.

-John M

[Philip Marshall]

To add more fuel to the fire, I've read somewhere that the original paint scheme was gray with RED lettering, not black.

I just checked "Two Feet to the Lakes" and you are correct -- gray and red it was!

(See how misleading black and white photography can be?)

[Ira Schreiber]

In black and white photography, red shows up as black.

[James Patten]

What if we painted it our customary red and labeled it simply "67" without any railroad name at all?

My personal objection to that would be that the WW&F had a boxcar 67, which is no longer with us.  It's not WW&F 67, and in this case, it's not even a replica of WW&F 67!  It's a not a Portland Company car, it's Laconia which probably had slightly different construction techniques and such than PCo.  So I think it disingenuous of us to pretend.  We don't pretend, we either acknowledge it's a B&SR car or we give it the next number in the WW&F boxcar series.  Either way - we can always repaint it to the other railroad's name/number (yes, a lot of work but it can be done) at one point or another.

[Jason M Lamontagne]

I have to say I agree with the pure philosophy of WW&F-izing everything possible; many of us feel we are continuing the history of the WW&F as much as preserving it.  Or I suppose that's the same thing. 

But...  We will, eventually, also have one of the B&SR tank cars.  That's a very unique piece of history which we saved for that reason- and because we were able to. 

We've discussed for some time pairing a boxcar with that tank, equipping the boxcar with a pump and fire fighting tools- and having the 'unit fire train' always ready.  From the outside it will appear as part of a freight train.  If we do that someday- I would suppose this as the ideal car. 

All in all- I can see having a Bridgton equipment segment, paired together for purpose, and painted in Bridgton livery as a stand-off.  Then it's an honest preservation of those cars' heritage.

Just some more cents- maybe we'll have a dollar soon.

See ya
Jason

[Fred Morse]

  Because a lot of us like all the Maine Two Footers as Harry P. did, He had all the names of all the Five narrow Gauge railroads and their Dates in the station. I wish we could have a car from every one of them. Or engine.

[Ed Lecuyer]

Ok, since everyone else is chiming in...

I like the idea of lettering it with just the number *if* there is photographic evidence that car 67 was in fact lettered that way when in service on the B&SR/B&H. If there is no conclusive proof, then gray with red lettering would not only provide some variety in coloring, it would certainly differentiate it from the WW&F rolling stock.

To Jason's point about the tank car, I would suspect that it would be labeled SOCONY - as that is the livery it wore in service on the B&SR/B&H.

I think in the larger picture, we are really a museum that acts like a railroad, and not a railroad that acts like a museum. Museum pieces of historical significance should be treated as such. Replicas and fabrications should reflect the original WW&F or what they would have done.

That said, who's has upped their Fall Fundraiser donation to help pay for the restoration? Paint is relatively cheap. Wood and fabrication of missing parts - not so much.

[Wayne Laepple]

My two cents worth.

I am in agreement with Steve P. The car should be restored as a B&SR car, and there should be some information for visitors about its origin and use. Steve's point about the five two-footers is well-taken and should be a part of the story. If the decision is made that B&SR No. 67 should NEVER EVER appear in a train with WW&F equipment, perhaps it could be set up as a museum display car, similar to the role of the Turner Centre Dairying car, with appropriate displays and so forth. With a couple of display cases, photos, maps and some larger artifacts, it could free up additional space in the gift shop for retail. It could be kept in the current shop building and moved outside so visitors could enter it via some steps.