Can someone please define what the term "historic fabric" means relating to static museum locomotives, operating museum locomotives, non-profit operating locomotives, and locomotives operated by for-profit entities, if there are any differences between your definitions for each situation please explain? Does the definition change if we substitute rolling stock or artifacts for the word locomotives?

Is performing repairs to a locomotive using the standard practices of the railroad and or the builder actually destroying this "historic fabric" or is it extending the interpretive life of it in it's environment of original use or close replication there of.

When does this fabric become historic. perhaps at the end of the locomotives first owner's use or at some other point in time? Railroads, such as the PRR used many standard interchangeable parts, when parts from various locomotives were mixed together at major shoppings, does historic fabric get destroyed? As an example, PRR 1361 has had both frame sections replaced, both cylinder castings replaced, the frame section under the firebox was renewed at some point, the boiler to the best of my recollection is not original 1361. What parts are historic fabric and what parts are not and on what basis do you make your decision.

Thanks for your thoughts, and please keep it civil.
Mike Tillger

"Historic Fabric" may be more an emotional reaction, or a moment in time by which say a locomotive was created.

The original US declaration of Indepedence is a Historic Fabric carefully preserved and buried as it contains the original signatures of this nation's forefathers.

Lets say the Baldwin built 4-8-0's Lost Engines, built in 1911, they ran, those that survived up to 1951-1960 when steam finally ended, however during their long life they got various mods/fixes to keep them in operation or update their operationality. The Historical fabric has been altered, but by the railroad itself.

Now consider today's operating steam locomotives and the museums, say, 2101 and the recent thread on damage/repairs, parts were borrowed off other engines, maybe this altered 2101's historical fabric and the borrowed engines parts, but kept 2101 in operating service for fantrips. The reality today is there are no more major steam manufactures to easily get parts from, so you borrowed from existing engines.

But X locomotive in Y Museum is missing parts.

The 3 lost engines in Roanoke had many missing parts, so like for 1134 mockups were made to bring it back to visiually correct viewing, tho the historical fabric in the scrap yard ruined a lot of its fabric. Well, you did what you could do.
But like today anyways, if you are industrious enough, you can replace anything on an engine to working order, but you can't replace the signatures on the Declaration of Indepedence.

Say the Lincoln Funeral Car, barely nothing of it exists today, but thru pictures, descriptions, you could re-create it.

The reality say the K4 in disassembled condition, it is meant to come back to operating condition, the reality is the boiler to operate needed working over, if we tried to use the original existing fabric, boiler explosion. Sorry, doesnt work, but we can bring it back to the "Spirit" of the Historical Fabric, so there ya go.

This is a great topic!

To my mind, historic fabric is the pieces of a locomotive, rail car or any physical thing, which currently exists on or in relation to the piece of equipment being considered. Historic fabric can have degrees of relevance and importance. In a restoration, one chooses a point in time a piece of equipment existed and then tries to bring that piece of equipment to as close to its condition, appearance and operational ability as it was during that time period. Historic fabric is a critical clue in understanding the intent of the designers, builders and users of historic equipment, the tools and technology of the time and materials that were available and utilized. The same is true for an operational restoration

Historic fabric plays a different role when the object is to make something that is not operational, operational, safe and reliable for public use. While we want a steam locomotive to function, look and smell like a steam locomotive, it makes sense to take advantage of modern materials and processes. The historic fabric becomes a guide for the refurbishment. A riveted boiler may be replaced by a welded one. A rotten cab originally made from old growth yellow pine might be replaced by alder harvested from a modern managed forest. The locomotive is not loosing anything in this scenario. It is evolving into the next chapter of its continued life.

S.O.

This is an opinion, and only an opinion......

I prefer the use of the word "authentic". In the case of diesel locomotives, there is what is defined by the builder (in the specification books, parts manuals, maintenance instructions, etc.) which is "authentic" (including factory authorized modernizations and factory documented parts substitutions), and then there are the non-authentic additions which include everything else added as aftermarket enhancements, owner customization, and convenience substitutions for items no longer available, etc.

PC

Mike--

I think there is a missing step here. Before defining or valuing historic fabric becomes relevant, there is a prior decision to be made. In museum terms, that decision is: is the artifact being accessioned into, or managed as part of, the permanent collection, or a use collection?

With artifacts in a permanent collection, preservation is the first priority. The goal is to convey the artifact in substantially unaltered condition to future generations, indefinitely. One then makes another set of decisions about whether the best road forward is conservation (maximum retention of current fabric as unimpaired as possible for perpetuity) or restoration (restoring the artifact to its condition at some specific time in its history, including adding new fabric to replace what is decayed, missing or removed). When you get into conservation vs. restoration decisions you do get into some weeds about weighing the relative value of fabric from different eras (construction vs. later repairs, for example). Conservation is always the more conservative course, and done faithfully it precludes backdating, for example. But there are always good arguments for restoration as well. It's a framework for thinking and decision making, not a formula that generates only one right answer.

If the artifact is in a use collection, by contrast, the chief priority is to maintain it in usable condition and use or operate it in the service of interpretation. Fabric can be altered or replaced in kind to support this goal.

So you see, its not really possible to talk about the value of original fabric or nail down its meaning outside of a prior decision about conservation vs. use. And that decision can only be made in light of an organization's mission. The value of original fabric is contextual, not absolute.

To bring it home to a real case, take wooden coaches at Strasburg and at RRM of Pa. Same kind of artifact, same era. Strasburg's mission is to operate a profitable business around creating a high-fidelity living history experience. So when a coach is played out, they go in, rip out the rotted truss (yes, rip out the heart of the historic fabric), and replace it with their new unibody plywood girder construction. And that's fine.

Across the street at RRM of Pa the mission is to preserve artifacts unimpaired, in perpetuity, for the education of future scholars and visitors. They would never rip out a load bearing truss in a passenger car. They would try first to conserve it, and, if it was irreparably rotted, replace it in kind, as close to an exact duplicate in wood and construction technique as possible. And that's fine.

The key is that each organization knows its mission, is internally logical and consistent about how it implements it, and manages the historic objects it owns in accord. What fabric should be maintained is different for the two organizations, even through the objects--wooden coaches in this example--might be nearly identical.

"Historic fabric" literally means the original components and material. Anything that has been replaced is, strictly speaking, not historic fabric. However, this needs to be viewed in the context of what era, and for what purpose, the artifact is preserved.

Take, for example, a hypothetical D&RGW class K-28 narrow gauge locomotive. If the intent is to restore it to represent the locomotive as built, then anything added later, even by the D&RGW, is not part of the historic fabric. However, if the intent is to preserve the locomotive as an example of the railroad operated tourist service on the Silverton branch during the sixties, then the fake diamond stacks become part of the historic fabric, as these were added by the railroad specifically for this service. If one were to want to preserve the same locomotive as an example of turn of the twenty first century tourist railroad equipment, it would not be complete without the current spark arrester equipment on the stack. The "history" in historic fabric ends (or begins if you are looking backwards) at the point that the artifact ceased to be an everyday working locomotive and became an artifact to be preserved.

And therein lies the problem with "operating museums". We use the artifacts to preserve the operation, but we consume the artifact in the process. The argument is often made that the railroads repaired, modified, and replaced material all the time. This is true, but... it was the railroad that was doing it, so looking at the work they did tells us a story about the decisions they made, and gives us hints as to they saw as deficiencies in the original design, etc. When present day owners make repairs, they are just as likely to make substitutions and changes in material, often because exact copies of the original are no longer available. The problem is, all these present day substitutions can tell us is that the present owner was too cheap to have the original replicated. They tell us nothing about the way it was done while the artifact was still in service.

An example would be putting 26 brake equipment on a steam locomotive. Yes, there are many valid arguments why it is "better"; it is more supportable. It lasts longer in service without maintenance. The pool of qualified crews is larger. On the flip side, it doesn't look the same; no one can determine how the 6 equipment was actually piped by looking at the newly installed 26 equipment. It doesn't operate the same, so gives no clue as to what operational issues 6 equipment might have caused, and the pool of engineers with knowledge of the quirks of 6 equipment dwindles further.

Playing devil's advocate here:
When the Smithsonian operated their John Bull, was there a crossing of the line as far as "use" of a conserved permanent collection item? I am sure there was much discussion within the Smithsonian, before the John Bull was permitted to operate. How does an organization going about making such a decision?

Mike Tillger

I've thought about that myself--it was a bold move. But I can't answer the question to my own satisfaction until I can talk with Bill Withuhn about how they made the decision. Without knowing the process, by hearing from the decision makers about what they did and how they documented it, I can't have an opinion.

From a practical perspective, I've seen the term most applied as describing whatever there is at either when the thing was first put "into preservation", or when it was "retired from service". This speaks more of a status change - an object to be used becomes an object to be studied. When that change occurs, whatever the object is at the time is "original historic fabric". I think most of us think of it as "what it was when we got it." Great Grandfather's axe is still his axe no matter if he replaced the head once and the handle 5 times. If we replace the handle and head, it's our axe now. If we replace them with exact duplicates of what he used, it's our replica of his axe.

Erik's insights are dead-on from a professional's perspective. We also need to be careful not to impose a sort of moral judgement on others when they choose to use part of their collection for a different purpose than what we'd do if it was ours.

If you want to hedge your bets, there's "reversability" to add to the brew. This implies the ability to unmake whatever change you make to an object to render it back to just as it was before you changed it.

I've given up on obsessing about this as applied to what we deal with most - machinery built in multiple quantities with interchangeability of parts, conceived to be used hard and have consumable fabric replaced to keep it useful. Very little of what we have is unique, noteworthy, or handcrafted artisanship. I like our having relatively untouched examplars from different eras, and of changes made to single objects over a long history of use, but I don't think we need to get too upset about 95% of our stuff from this perspective - we need to get more upset about stuff rotting away for lack of resources, planning, or care, and about maintaining cultural relevance to build market share and succeed at all.

Make good, fact based rational decisions based on respect and doing the right thing, and you will be doing well enough.

dave

In another post I made reference to "original or historical fabric" in relation to boiler repair. When viewing a repair in process of sectioning a boiler course, I suggested off the top of my head "why not just replace the whole course"? The job would of been more cost effective and made all the pitting go away, not just the really bad stuff. The answer I got was "we want to destroy as little of the "historical fabric" as possible. No right or wrong as the sectioning would of been an acceptable repair had it been done correctly. The point is of differing points of view. My point was in fabricating a new course you would of gotten one thing out of it, the other perspective you would be saving something out of it. My opinion/reasoning is obvious to me as the other opinion was to that party.

In wooden coach repair and restoration I might agree that saving the original fabric is a good idea where applicable. Depending on what the coach was going to be used for of course. Such as Strasburg v/s Museum of Pa in terms of use.

The whole topic can get real anal. As already stated very little of any "historical fabric" remains on equipment that survived in RR service into the 1960s or 1970s. Agreed the term means different things to different people depending on what situation your in. I think we run into problems of perspective when the term is applied to all things in a blanket approach to any situation. Feel it is a topic that some need to dwell on and see "one size does not fit all". The world would be so much easier if things really were one dimensional and stationary instead of fluid and changeable.

Agree with Dave's post above. Very well stated.

Cheers, John.

OK, Mike, I'll swallow the bait now. Jerk back firmly to set the hook.

Rooting around I found this on the Smithsonian web site: "In the 1970s, NMAH curator John White posed a question: Could John Bull run one last time on the 150th anniversary of its first steaming in America? On September 15, 1981, after considerable analysis, a careful examination by a boiler-inspection firm, and a 1980 trial run on a branch-line track in Virginia, John Bull displayed its magic before a rapt audience. Belching fire and smoke under the care of White and colleagues John Stine and Bill Withuhn, the locomotive ran on the old Georgetown Branch rails beside the C&O Canal in Washington, DC."

http://historywired.si.edu/detail.cfm?ID=225

It's not much to go on, but I'll speculate--just me speculating.

Let's start by my saying that there is no one--no one--I trust to make this decision more than Jack White. You read his passenger car and freight car books and quickly realize he has more experience than anyone else in teasing apart which parts of a 19C railroad artifact date to which era; what's as built, what's a service modification, and what's a "relic" modification made by the railroad but after the artifact became a curio not a daily tool. He knows from fabric.

Second, I assume that in making this decision White and Withuhn were doing something they had long wanted and needed to do anyway--really survey the artifact and document its condition and read out its history from a thorough inspection, including some disassembly.

Third, I'll assume that after that inspection, White and Withuhn knew pretty much exactly which part of the engine's fabric dated to which era, and also knew that they would not have to alter it further or in any lasting way to operate it one or two times under controlled conditions. And so they did, and clearly they and we all learned a great deal from it.

So the long and the short of it is, I guess for me this defines an extreme case. I would never casually make a decision to operate an artifact like the John Bull. But people matter--and in this case, the two people making the decision are two I trust. When you've studied 19C tech as carefully as White, and written several still-definitive articles on how to apply the concept of original fabric, conservation, restoration, and replication to railroad stock, you've earned my deference when you make a judgment call.

Which is different from saying that I think it would be great for Unnamed Museum X to tear down Artifact Y for an operational rebuild on the sole argument that "White did it with the John Bull at SI" and nothing more.

This is a topic that has always interested me, but I did not really apply the idea of the "historic fabric" until suddenly faced with it.

Back around 2000, as chairman of NJMT, we were presented with an opportunity to take ownership of a 1870s wooden PRR coach, a Pb I believe (some one can correct me on that).

Back around 1900 or so, it was moved to Seaside, NJ and positioned along the ocean with several other cars as part of a fishing camp for a group based in Philadelphia. Over the years, ocean storms and fire destroyed all but one of the cars which by 2000 had been pretty much cacooned in various add on structures and a roof over the whole mess. Through that spring we worked with the owner to uncover the car and see exactly what we had. In truth, and at first glance, it was a very well preserved wooden coach from the 1870s time frame. We had help from the good people at the RRMPA as to drawings and identification. Most wood work was intact, gold leaf was evident through out, the stain glass windows still in place, most window hardware in place. It indeed had that "original fabric." Our goal was to preserve that fabric.

We ran into two problems with the car. First was its location. Near the ocean, the salt air pretty much destroyed any iron screws, rods, truss rods, and bolts that held the car together. As a result it was going to be expensive to move it. And I mean very expensive. But we felt it worth while to preserve such a unique untouched artifact.

The second problem was an owner, who had not yet donated the car to us, who wanted souvenirs. One day we came in and all the stain glass windows were gone. Another day the gold leaf door jams were cut out. In other words, much of the original fabric was now gone. The steel frame work we were going to apply to it probably would have negatively impacted the original fabric as well.

It was my decision to walk away from the project before signing a large contract to move the car. It was the loss of the "original fabric" that drove the decision coupled with an expensive move. A well preserved, although delicate, piece of rare 1870s rolling stock was bull dozed a few weeks later buy the owner.

To me, "original fabric" hits you like a ton of bricks. You can not help but notice it. And it is worth preserving.

J.R. May

Step one: determine the artifact's "Period of Significance." -When was this thing contributing to history in a meaningful way?

Step two: identify any changes that have been made since the conclusion of the Period of Significance. Everything else that has not been changed is historic fabric.

Your choice as to what to do with both the historic fabric and non-historic fabric determines wither you are pursuing Conservation, Restoration, or Rehabilitation. There are guidelines for each approach. Both restoration and rehabilitation allow for limited replacement of materials in-kind.

I do believe that L&RP addressed the issue of historic fabric many times. Maybe its time to pull the issues off the shelf and do a bit of reading guys.

Kind of scary that something as simple and basic as historic fabric is not understood by the posters here. Its taught in Preservation 101!

One of the reasons I started this thread was to help educate some of the younger members, not all of whom were even born when LR&P was published. If we don't educate the youth of our organizations, they are just going to repeat the past, which includes the good and the bad of preservation. Discussion of Preservation 101 is a very good thing in my opinion.


Mike Tillger