Preservation or Restoration?

[43096]

This could reopen the fun little argument of Preserved Railways - Museum or large-scale trainset?

Every time you replace a part on a train, you're removing a historical artefact, every time you repair it you're scarring the original parts with modern welds and rivets. The repair methods used aren't authentic and neither are the parts and equipment. Historically it's the equivalent of stripping out a historic building and patching it up with breezeblocks and polyfilla.

How many times have original works built boilers or large original parts been stripped out and replaced by modern replacements? The original being either dumped behind a shed to rust away or eventually scrapped? There has to be an acknowledgement that by continuing to make them run, preserved railways are degrading historical artefacts.

What's the alternative? If you do nothing to keep it "as was" it will deteriorate anyway and ultimately end up back as iron oxide.

In any case, everything will have had repairs and modifications through its life so isn't original anyway. Arguably, making those repairs in preservation is just a continuation of what has happened through the vehicle's life.

 

[lttgroup]

Taking the example of the 483s again...

Throughout the latter part of their service life latterly, they've been patched up using whatever spares are available, parts have been cannibalised and swapped between units, other parts removed or replaced with new. This past month has seen 483006 sidelined, parts removed to finish 483007's overhaul, only to go back into the works, have a newly-overhauled bogie fitted and parts put back on. 483007 promptly failed and today 483006 returned to service a few weeks after some thought she'd been withdrawn.

I can't imagine there are many, if any, components left on 483006 which were there when her two DMs were outshopped by Met-Cam in 1940. As I say, even this month has seen parts swapped about between units so they're not even the same as they were in October! In my opinion, therefore, the argument for retaining all the components currently on 483006 indefinitely during preservation is a fairly poor one; "It won't be original anymore" - After 80 years near-constant service, with refurbishments in the 1970s, 1980s and early 2000s, combined with the recent situation there's not much in that.

We have a pool of newly-overhauled spares that the IoWSR are currently storing for us and eventually those will end up on the unit. When they're gone, new parts will be made or found as required; It's just a continuation and will enable a 483 to continue on in preservation service hopefully long after its centenary. If it were to be stuffed and mounted permanently so that its 'originality' weren't affected then I think that would be downright stupid in this case - Even the IoWSR, who are initially putting 483007 on static display in their museum, intend to maintain the unit in a running condition which will obviously entail the replacement of parts over time.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

What's the alternative? If you do nothing to keep it "as was" it will deteriorate anyway and ultimately end up back as iron oxide.

In any case, everything will have had repairs and modifications through its life so isn't original anyway. Arguably, making those repairs in preservation is just a continuation of what has happened through the vehicle's life.

No it won't! What made you think that?

Conservation doesn't mean simply doing nothing, it's protecting and conserving the fabric of an exhibit. Whatever it may be. It doesn't mean that you can't repair or maintain it.

"Nothing is original anyway" is an awful argument. Some things are worth running and there's historical interest in that too. For rollingstock that's incredibly common and not necessarily that old or of much historic interest then yes, it's probably worth running it. But if you were for example to take an original, complete, Victorian steam engine and strip out the original boiler and many of the parts, in order to get it running again, then you're likely destroying what makes it historically interesting. It'd be an act of vandalism.

 

[Journeyman]

I think a time will probably come when a preserved diesel will end up with a completely knackered engine that can't be replaced by another of the same type, and can no longer be patched up.

So...the only way you could keep it going would be to modify it with a completely different type of engine. Pragmatism or sacrilege? Is it any different from the HSTs losing their Valentas at mid-life?

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

Taking the example of the 483s again...

I don't think any conservationist would suggest that you should leave them as-is indefinitely.

If hypothetically you had the last remaining example of a 1938 stock set, that had been on static display for many years in original condition, then a conservationist might object if you proposed replacing a large amount of the original fabric of the train just to make it run again.

I think a time will probably come when a preserved diesel will end up with a completely knackered engine that can't be replaced by another of the same type, and can no longer be patched up.

So...the only way you could keep it going would be to modify it with a completely different type of engine. Pragmatism or sacrilege? Is it any different from the HSTs losing their Valentas at mid-life?

I suppose the question would be - Do you need to keep it going that much? You're not really preserving the whole thing at that point are you? You have a choice between preserving it as a static exhibit but complete, or instead gutting out the insides to reengineer it, but keeping it moving.

If it's one of dozens maybe the latter isn't a bad idea, but if it's unique and historically important, maybe it's better leaving it as-is?

 

[Journeyman]

I suppose the question would be - Do you need to keep it going that much? You're not really preserving the whole thing at that point are you? You have a choice between preserving it as a static exhibit but complete, or instead gutting out the insides to reengineer it, but keeping it moving.

If it's one of dozens maybe the latter isn't a bad idea, but if it's unique and historically important, maybe it's better leaving it as-is?

Interestingly enough, it's the historical rarities that will face the issue more than the very common locos. There are plenty of preserved 37s and 47s, so much so that keeping them going more or less indefinitely won't be a problem. You'll always have plenty of spares. English Electric used similar engines and parts across a range of locos, from shunters up to the 40s and 50s, so I doubt any of those will be an issue. It's things like the class 15, 17 and 28 where this becomes rather more difficult.

Recent examples of significant alteration to get back to running order are the Brighton Belle (traction equipment from a 4-CIG, significantly altered interior layout, non-original formation) and the NER petrol electric railcar (modern diesel engine, EPB motor bogie). Are those acceptable compromises? It's a tough call.

 

[43096]

No it won't! What made you think that?

Conservation doesn't mean simply doing nothing, it's protecting and conserving the fabric of an exhibit. Whatever it may be. It doesn't mean that you can't repair or maintain it.

"Nothing is original anyway" is an awful argument. Some things are worth running and there's historical interest in that too. For rollingstock that's incredibly common and not necessarily that old or of much historic interest then yes, it's probably worth running it. But if you were for example to take an original, complete, Victorian steam engine and strip out the original boiler and many of the parts, in order to get it running again, then you're likely destroying what makes it historically interesting. It'd be an act of vandalism.

So how do you conserve a vehicle bodyshell? Paint... Paint deteriorates over time, so what do you do? Paint it with ye olde worlde paint (which is a. inferior to current types and b. is illegal for use in some cases) or use modern materials that provide better protection (conservation) and last longer, but which isn't historically accurate based on what you have said.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

So how do you conserve a vehicle bodyshell? Paint... Paint deteriorates over time, so what do you do? Paint it with ye olde worlde paint (which is a. inferior to current types and b. is illegal for use in some cases) or use modern materials that provide better protection (conservation) and last longer, but which isn't historically accurate based on what you have said.

It feels like you're deliberately misunderstanding this to pick a fight.

I won't oblige,

 

[lttgroup]

Regarding the Brighton Belle, I personally feel that whilst I am not at all a fan of what they have done to the unit, I gather there are still some Driving Motors around which have not had that treatment so it's acceptable.

 

[Peter Sarf]

At the risk of going off topic and into a bit of a rant, this is something that I find intensely frustrating. Owners such as this are not preserving these vehicles, but rather they are presiding over their slow decay while they entertain unrealistic dreams that probably will never be fulfilled. As such, these vehicles are at risk of being lost forever.

I suppose the vehicle would have been lost forever anyway if the unrealistic purchaser had not purchased it in the first place. Only caveat is if someone outbid a more realistic person/group that had a better chance of looking after the vehicle in question.

It is frustrating seeing something neglected. But I tell myself that, at least, it buys time. Time that was not on the side of the original Warship (D60x) and I think the D63xxs that were scrapped at Barry. Hindsight !.

On the other hand buying a vehicle with no hope of preservation/restoration/conservation is worse than sinking the money into helping others preserve/restore/conserve their vehicle. And as others have said there is not an unlimited supply of covered storage.

 

[Bevan Price]

This could reopen the fun little argument of Preserved Railways - Museum or large-scale trainset?

Every time you replace a part on a train, you're removing a historical artefact, every time you repair it you're scarring the original parts with modern welds and rivets. The repair methods used aren't authentic and neither are the parts and equipment. Historically it's the equivalent of stripping out a historic building and patching it up with breezeblocks and polyfilla.

How many times have original works built boilers or large original parts been stripped out and replaced by modern replacements? The original being either dumped behind a shed to rust away or eventually scrapped? There has to be an acknowledgement that by continuing to make them run, preserved railways are degrading historical artefacts.

The truth is that Railway preservationists invariably want to play with their toys. Far too many historic and noteworthy items are allowed to fall into disrepair to the point that they're unsalvageable because they're either inoperable or not suitable for preserved passenger use.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but there needs to be a recognition that Preservation, Conservation and wanting to run a full size train set are all very different things!

The Mumbles tram is an example of what should not be allowed to happen. "Preserved" on the Middleton Railway, where there was no chance of it ever operating. Neglected, because inevitably they gave priority to stock that could be used, and condition became so poor that it was scrapped. In retrospect, questions could be asked about why anyone took it to Middleton, and, later, seeing it was rotting & of no local use - why did they not try harder to find a safer home for it before it became only fit for scrap?

 

[Pinza-C55]

The Mumbles tram is an example of what should not be allowed to happen. "Preserved" on the Middleton Railway, where there was no chance of it ever operating. Neglected, because inevitably they gave priority to stock that could be used, and condition became so poor that it was scrapped. In retrospect, questions could be asked about why anyone took it to Middleton, and, later, seeing it was rotting & of no local use - why did they not try harder to find a safer home for it before it became only fit for scrap?

I've been a volunteer on three preservation projects and inevitably what happens when they get some sidings laid is that the "-fill in name of rolling stock group-" want to bring their treasured object to sit on the siding while they restore it, Then they lose interest or money and it rots.

 

[Titfield]

I've been a volunteer on three preservation projects and inevitably what happens when they get some sidings laid is that the "-fill in name of rolling stock group-" want to bring their treasured object to sit on the siding while they restore it, Then they lose interest or money and it rots.

Sadly an all too familiar story. I fear that many groups underestimate the skills, money and time required to restore any large artefact. Many heritage railways have sidings absolutely full of stock awaiting restoration many of which have now spent longer out of service awaiting restoration than they spent in active service.

 

[Journeyman]

Regarding the Brighton Belle, I personally feel that whilst I am not at all a fan of what they have done to the unit, I gather there are still some Driving Motors around which have not had that treatment so it's acceptable.

I'm rather struggling to forgive them for the major surgery they've done on it. It's ending up only vaguely resembling the original train, with original interiors significantly altered as well as the external changes. I'm not convinced it's been worth the compromises to get it going, given that loco-hauled Pullmans exist.

 

[EbbwJunction1]

As far as the preservation of a loco in it's original form goes, as has been said, most locos were changed materially when they were overhauled during their working lives.

Just after the return to steam of 6000 King George V in 1971, the 6000 Locomotive Organisation commissioned a book about her. It's called "6000 King George V - A Chronology" and it tells the story from 1923 to 1971. One of the chapters is called "Life's Toils", which includes a list of the overhauls and a description of what was done. When the last overhaul was carried out for the return to steam, a visual examination of the die stamps on the parts used was undertaken, which revealed that far from being original, there were parts from six other Kings, six Castles and two Stars. Only four parts were found to bear the die stamps for 6000 .... just like, I suggest, "Trigger's Broom"!

I suppose that it depends what you want your loco or carriage to actually do once you've bought it. If you want it to run on a preserved railway, then I guess that the amount of work is large, depending on the condition it was when you bought it. I'm assuming that if you want it to run on the mainline, the work gets proportionally greater because of the higher speeds and increased safety measures that are necessary.

If, however, you're content for the loco or carriage to be a static exhibit in a museum building (for example The Engine Shed at Highley), then I assume that the work becomes less and just allows it to be moved to the place that it's going to stay. I would also assume that it has to be checked from time to time but, provided that it's okay, it shouldn't require a lot of work from then on.

Not having been involved in preservation work, I can't be sure that what I have said is right, mind you, so I'm happy to be corrected!

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

The Mumbles tram is an example of what should not be allowed to happen. "Preserved" on the Middleton Railway, where there was no chance of it ever operating. Neglected, because inevitably they gave priority to stock that could be used, and condition became so poor that it was scrapped. In retrospect, questions could be asked about why anyone took it to Middleton, and, later, seeing it was rotting & of no local use - why did they not try harder to find a safer home for it before it became only fit for scrap?

I think that's a great point, a huge amount of the preservation efforts of preserved railways will always be spent on keeping the Mk1s and Mk2s running, because they're the ones that bring in the money. The stuff that's rotting away is usually the most historically important stock on the whole railway.

 

[Titfield]

The open stock Mk1s and 2s are usually kept running because they maximise the seating capacity available in the most useful layout. One of the problems of compartment stock is the reluctance of the general public to share compartments and thus maximise the use of the available seating. Also compartment doors create additrional maintenance issues and are slightly more "dangerous" from a health and safety point of view (trapped fingers).

A further issue is once you have spent £xxxx restoring a historically important carriage do you want it being used by the hoi polloi who may well inflict wear and tear well above what the owner / restorer may be comfortable with.

 

[eldomtom2]

I have never been entirely convinced that preserved railways should think of themselves as museums - you wouldn't call a repertory cinema a museum of film...

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

I have never been entirely convinced that preserved railways should think of themselves as museums - you wouldn't call a repertory cinema a museum of film...

Me neither,

But, being a cynic, I'd ask that if they're not calling themselves a museum, should they be hoarding irreplaceable historical artefacts that they're not able to restore?

 

[BigB]

I have never been entirely convinced that preserved railways should think of themselves as museums - you wouldn't call a repertory cinema a museum of film...

Unless they are of course also an accredited museum... some are and have display facilities when items are restored cosmetically and on show. Convinced yet?
Most cinemas don't actually own films so unless you are the Scottish Moving Image Archive you can't really call your cinema that. Mind you, they don't really do that either as they are part of the National Library of Scotland...

 

[colchesterken]

Cat among the pigeons here !! I have been thinking about doing a Brighton Belle job on other units, I think it is a shame to see locos static in museums if they could be used on either the main line or preserved railways. My favourite unit the 306 was kept running as preserved then left to rot.. Money no object here is my plan
306 keep at much as original as poss. re work the electric parts with bits from 315 or 317s
John Hamden again as above with bits from Vivarial removed from D stock. with I believe a bit of chassis welding, Could go out with Sara Siddons. as new electrics take up less space than the old stuff pop a diesel in as per Cl73s and go any ware with the 4TC LT unit
The EM woodhead loco in NRM as above with bits from 86s

 

[Spamcan81]

This could reopen the fun little argument of Preserved Railways - Museum or large-scale trainset?

Every time you replace a part on a train, you're removing a historical artefact, every time you repair it you're scarring the original parts with modern welds and rivets. The repair methods used aren't authentic and neither are the parts and equipment. Historically it's the equivalent of stripping out a historic building and patching it up with breezeblocks and polyfilla.

How many times have original works built boilers or large original parts been stripped out and replaced by modern replacements? The original being either dumped behind a shed to rust away or eventually scrapped? There has to be an acknowledgement that by continuing to make them run, preserved railways are degrading historical artefacts.

The truth is that Railway preservationists invariably want to play with their toys. Far too many historic and noteworthy items are allowed to fall into disrepair to the point that they're unsalvageable because they're either inoperable or not suitable for preserved passenger use.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but there needs to be a recognition that Preservation, Conservation and wanting to run a full size train set are all very different things!

Most locos/carriages will have had many parts repaired and replaced over the years. Repair techniques may well have changed over the years too. What would have been scrapped once can be repaired in later years. Preservation just continues that process. If you're not prepared to continue that progress then these preserved items won't operate. Very few people will want to spend a small fortune restoring an item just for it to sit around gathering dust.

 

[Mack91]

The EM woodhead loco in NRM as above with bits from 86s

I think it would be best to keep 76020 where it is. However, with the now growing number of new builds for 'lost classes', I have wondered if a 76 with AC power could ever be done for charter services? I'm pretty sure that would draw crowds.

 

[xotGD]

I think it would be best to keep 76020 where it is. However, with the now growing number of new builds for 'lost classes', I have wondered if a 76 with AC power could ever be done for charter services? I'm pretty sure that would draw crowds.

Couldn't it run on DC between Pelaw and Sunderland? Top and tail with an EM2.

 

[eldomtom2]

Unless they are of course also an accredited museum... some are and have display facilities when items are restored cosmetically and on show. Convinced yet?

Most aren't though, and some like the Bluebell take the revealing step of having an accredited museum attached to the railway but not being accredited themselves.

 

[Journeyman]

Cat among the pigeons here !! I have been thinking about doing a Brighton Belle job on other units, I think it is a shame to see locos static in museums if they could be used on either the main line or preserved railways. My favourite unit the 306 was kept running as preserved then left to rot.. Money no object here is my plan
306 keep at much as original as poss. re work the electric parts with bits from 315 or 317s
John Hamden again as above with bits from Vivarial removed from D stock. with I believe a bit of chassis welding, Could go out with Sara Siddons. as new electrics take up less space than the old stuff pop a diesel in as per Cl73s and go any ware with the 4TC LT unit
The EM woodhead loco in NRM as above with bits from 86s

What you're proposing there is horrific, if I'm honest.

The main reason the 306 can't run is that it doesn't meet modern safety standards, not issues with the traction equipment. To make it conform to the relevant standards would need such a massive rebuild that it would effectively be a completely different train.

 

[O L Leigh]

What you're proposing there is horrific, if I'm honest.

The main reason the 306 can't run is that it doesn't meet modern safety standards, not issues with the traction equipment. To make it conform to the relevant standards would need such a massive rebuild that it would effectively be a completely different train.

I'm not so sure that's correct, as Mk1s can still be operated on a private charter basis without major rebuild. We're not talking about building a brand new train here.

The Cl306 doesn't require new electrical equipment (or at least, it didn't before it was left stored outside), and donor equipment from other more modern units would almost certainly not be compatible anyway. But it lacks GSM-R and perhaps TPWS and OTMR (although these last two systems may already be installed from it's last forays onto the mainline).

However, the main reason it was sidelined was because it was Ilford depot's "pet" unit and was maintained by the staff in their spare time, and the influx of additional units from Hornsey meant that there was neither the time nor the space to devote to it. It also required a new HT cable to connect the pan to the transformer because the one fitted had almost completely failed and a replacement would have had to be custom made at a fairly ridiculous cost because no existing HT cable could be made to fit due to them all being too short.

 

[Flying Phil]

This question of Preservation or Restoration is always going to be difficult, if not impossible, to resolve and it really depends on who is doing the work, who is paying for it and what are the aims of those involved. We have been working on the "Windcutter" 16T mineral wagons for 27 years. They were bought by a fundraising effort of "Steam Railway" magazine to preserve and see in operation "A lengthy train". They were old and rusty when they arrived on the GCR. Should they be kept in that state? We have refurbished the running gear to keep them in use. We have cleaned and repainted them to reduce the rusting and improve the appearance of our railway to our visitors.
Some wagons had inner bodies welded in place and all doors welded shut to carry "Soda Ash" for ICI, should they be preserved in that state? The "hidden" corrosion is horrendous between the body panels. So we are returning them to a more "original" condition with no inner skin and opening doors.
Now they look cared for and are still running.....but is that how they looked "back in BR days"?
......And "Yes" we have considered painting them "Weathered" but, in reality, they look weathered naturally after 15 years in Swithland sidings and the odd Gala outings.

 

[Alanko]

Do you think it’s better for trains to be kept as they were on the day they were withdrawn (Class 303 at Bo’ness) or to be restored to how they looked at the height of their career? (The unrefurbished class 303 that was repainted into its original livery and ran on specials before being withdrawn due to asbestos).

I personally prefer for trains to be left as is as it provides the most accurate look into the past.

I remember when the 303 first went to Bo'ness, and not really 'getting it', but my Dad pointed out that it was actually quite an enlightened devision to preserve such a then-unloved train. I do however think that 'kept as they were on the day they were withdrawn' is a polite euphemism for 'not really had anything done to it' in many cases.

To add to this, it is probably worth considering that any loco or train stored outdoors is going to suffer from corrosion issues sooner or later. The other, potentially blasphemous, idea is that maybe some of this stuff wasn't built brilliantly in the first place. Or, at least, they were a spent force by the time they were available for preservation. To keep D200 running in the '80s they had to rob parts, including the prime mover, from other locos. Then they discover cracks in the bogies (or something major like that) and did another parts swap.

IIRC the 126s weren’t on the G&SW until later in their careers?

Why restore it to a state that has no meaning to scotland?

I think it is better that somebody, somewhere chose to restore it. I follow a fair few restoration groups and railways on Facebook. I've seen a lot of the hopelessly optimistic "big news coming next year!" posts about derelict locos on various railways. For example, allegedly all the Type 2 locos at Bridge of Dun will enter traffic at some point. I personally think that such redundancy on a small railway, cut off from the network, is baffling (combined with the uphill struggle of pressing a half dozen locos in various states of disrepair into service).

I've seen a similar sentiment aimed at aviation museums that display an aircraft not affiliated with the area/airfield the museum is located. In an ideal world there would be space for each type in the correct location, lovingly restored to the correct spec for the era most suitable.

 

[Titfield]

Some museums or collections eventually decide they need to "rationalise" their exhibits or "deduplicate" or "focus on items of key significance" - the point being they either realise or are compelled to realise that they have a total inventory too large for effective maintenance / preservation / restoration given their resources.

It is sad to see any item disposed of but it is a hard fact of life and surely it is better to have a well maintained and managed collection with exhibits safe and part of a well thought and resourced programme rather than seeing a larger collection deteriorating to the point that fewer survive than if a more pragmatic approach had been taken.