<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=resources/traffic&id=7099560">http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?secti ... id=7099560</a><!-- m -->

Whew. I was afraid it would be a wooden car at Midcontinent or something else horrible.

Please explain to me how a fire on any unoccupied museum piece could be worse than one in an occupied car during rush hour on an active commuter line.

railohio Wrote:Please explain to me how a fire on any unoccupied museum piece could be worse than one in an occupied car during rush hour on an active commuter line.

The idea is that no one was hurt... If anyone was hurt, yes, this would be worse.. But all things being equal..

Having a newer car burning doesn't even compair to losing a piece of history...

That's what was so tragic about the B&O Railroad Museum roof collapse years ago..

I always liked this quote:
======================
By Frank Van Riper
Special to Camera Works

"Of all the means of expression, photography is the only one that fixes forever the precise and transitory instant. We photographers deal in things that are continually vanishing, and when they have vanished, there is no contrivance on earth that can make them come back again. We cannot develop a print from memory..."

======================

So you see? once an historical item is damaged, even if it's rebuilt, it's not "Original" As long as no one was hurt, the historical item itself is the important part

railohio Wrote:Please explain to me how a fire on any unoccupied museum piece could be worse than one in an occupied car during rush hour on an active commuter line.

Like Mikey said, no one was hurt. In light of that, a dime-a-dozen commuter care being damaged isn't as great of a loss as a rare, historic piece.