Thoughts?

A piece of railroad equipment is an economic tool subject to wear and tear, and occasionally "overhauled" or"rebuilt" in a way that may or may not preserve original components.

For example, the preserved Pioneer Zephyr's power car is only about half of the original power car (the rear half), the front end was destroyed in a collision and replaced with a near duplicate "front half" built as a replacement by Budd. The 8-201A engine in the Pioneer Zephyr is not original.

PC

See also: The General, Wm Mason, Coronet 6 with its new boiler, and Scranton 505. Even The White House was gutted to the exterior walls in the 1950s with a new structure built inside. Much of the original interior fabric of the interior wound up in a landfill.

In Japan, most shrines are rebuilt every 20 years. The ones I visited in Kyoto still seemed like authentic 1000 year old structures to me.

If a person has an organ failure, which is then corrected with an organ transplant, do they then become a different person ? What if they have a new organ cloned from their own DNA ? Are they therefore the same person ?

My guess is the experience of going through either experience would make anybody different than before they experienced it.

A close family friend works full time at the Kyoto National Museum. She was an art major specializing in sculpture, and her job is to go out to nearby temples and shrines to do wood restoration work on both buildings and statues. Her family owns a temple that is over 700 years old, so she grew up with that understanding of history around her.

Anyone who watches videos on Japanese crafts (swordmaking, firing pottery, making kimonos, etc) can see the enjoyment that craftsperson gets out of the experience of doing a good job with an end product that is truly appreciated. I've seen that kind of joy in some of the people working at The Henry Ford in Dearborn, MI in their crafts areas (blacksmithing, weaving, running a steam railroad, etc).

Younger generations can get excited about this experience, too. They can get a taste of it on YouTube, but they also need someone with more years and patience to help make that connection for them real.

I guess if there is an argument against this, you can basically repair or replace any part of say a typical wooden caboose, enough to the point where none of the “original” caboose is left. If you replaced your entire body with robotic parts, are you really you anymore? That’s the question.

“Historical fabric” isn’t huge for me but I understand the appeal for many others. But as proven by the recent restoration of Rio Grande Southern 20, there are two things with historical fabric.

1. True “historic fabric” isn’t easily accessible unless the piece is broken down for repair. Much of the condition of RGS 20 wasn’t known or documented well until it was repaired

2. For me and likely several others, nothing beats seeing the piece work or being used. How much more engaging is the Wabash caboose the Fort Wayne guys restored vs just leaving it decaying?

I suppose I am a strong fan of historic fabric, something is only original once as they say. With the fabric comes the smells and such that are largely erased as part of a major restoration. In working on old MG's for example, and most any old British car, part of the ownership experience is the aroma - leaking gas, oil, water plus the usual mold in he carpets. I made the mistake of restoring a car and realized too late what it was that I was losing. My current MGA is an unrestored driver - it leaks, it smells - all good stuff.

I have had the pleasure of operating, for some number of years, two, what I would call, unrestored steam locomotives, Ely-Thomas Shay #6 (1927) and C&L #3L 4-4-0T Lady Edith (1887). Neither had any modern tear down rebuilds in preservation operation, although both had extensive rebuilds while in regular service, say pre-1955. The Lady Edith is on her third boiler, the current one built in the later 1920s. Both still largely carry some degree of dirt, grime, smells, leaks, noises dating to their pre-preservation owners. Call it historic fabric that will indeed be largely lost under a modern rebuild to operation. I count myself lucky to have experienced both in their unrestored condition.

The PRR N6b restoration that I am part of, which can be seen elsewhere on RyPN, is probably something similar to the Kyoto article mentioned above by Rick. It had historic fabric as it was largely untouched dating back to about 1965, although the body was mostly mulch held together by luck. We carefully dismantled it, preserving as much of the "fabric" as we could, but it will indeed smell new and look new, but with elements from the original found throughout, when it is done. We found that as built, the workers must have been paid by the nail - where two will do, eight must be better. As it was repaired over the years, the workers ignored the drawings and made do with what they had. We learned a lot from the "fabric" as to how it was built, how it was repaired, AND the skills needed to keep it repaired. Again, with the Kyoto example, I imagine they have done the same thing, discovered the same things, learned the same skills dating back 1,000 years as needed.

J.R. May

Unless the artifact is preserved in situ, there are bound to be deviations from the original piece. "Old Ironsides" the USS Constitution floats preserved in salt water. Nearly everything on the wooden battleship has been replaced except a few metal non-functioning parts. Yet it is considered original. An example I liked to give when teaching US History to middle schoolers was George Washington's original hatchet. Even though it has had 2 new heads and 3 new handles it's still considered his original hatchet. A real head-scratcher.

It's a tough question and depends on your goals for the artifact.

Are you going to use it, or are you putting it in a glass case in the Smithsonian. If it's to be put on display for future historians to examine and learn from, great, keep as much of the original as possible. If it's going to be used, well, then maybe 150 year old boiler tubes aren't the right choice.

Also, a lot of it has to do with how the artifact is repaired. Using the well worn hatchet example. Were the replacement handles and head the same type and style of material as the original? If it's still a hand forged head and a hickory handle for example, then you could consider it to be the same artifact. If the handle was upgraded to carbon fiber and then the head was replaced with stainless steel, even if it's the same shape, then not so much.

I also suspect who did the repair and when they were done matters. If Washington replaced the head and handle, that's one thing, it's still his axe. If 14 later owners have all swapped them 2 or 3 times, then you've likely lost the original someplace along the way.

Again, it's a matter of the final goal. Some railroad use as much original material and designs as they can. Others embrace modern technology and do things like using completely different structural components. Which one is right? That depends, what's your goal?

We have the same issue in photography, whether or not to Photoshop something, and if you do, how much is allowable. Lots of grey area in both debates.

I think the line between preserving the historic fabric; versus rebuilding with improved design and materials in the interest of improving the efficient use or operation of an old artifact is clear.

I don’t believe that preserving the historical fabric means that missing pieces cannot be recreated and applied with the same design and materials that were known to be used on the original artifact. Even in cases where the exact design or materials of a missing piece is unknown, I think that preserving the historic fabric permits honest assumptions to be made in choosing the replacement of such missing pieces.

The Washington’s hatchet analogy seems to imply that preserving the historical fabric is not a feasible goal. But this belief would have to include the assumption that replacing any lost material disqualifies the attempt to preserve the original fabric.

I was browsing on another site and came across this quote attributed to Gustav Mahler;
"Tradition is the passing on of fire, not the worship of ashes." I think everyone who frequents this board strives to preserve, while at the same time keeping operational and safety considerations at the top of the list when bringing back a piece of equipment to service.

The question of retention of historic fabric comes up repeatedly. Retention of historic fabric is dependent on the artifact's best state in terms of interpretive value as determined by the owner of the artifact. When considering retention of original fabric some pertinent inquiries may include:
1. To what historic era is the original fabric in question original?
2. How does the removal /replacement of said original fabric impact the interpretive experience?
3. Does retention of the original fabric put the artifact at risk?

In JR's example, a frame up on an MG will eliminate the many odors associated with these old cars. My Uncle's '53 MG TD also smelled like mold, gas, and oil (exposure to which may negatively impact the health of anyone experiencing the car) when he bought it. While our restoration may have removed these sensory elements, the driving experience in terms of road feel, steering effort, and just the plain old feeling of taking one's life into one's hands every time we took it out to do 60 mph ++ on Ocean Parkway were not impacted. More importantly, removing the source of those odors (especially the mold) was important in the stabilization of the car. Unfortunately, the removal of the gas smell was ephemeral as the gas tank gasket remained problematic as long as my Uncle owned the car.

The more lasting challenge with removal/replacement of original fabric is in documenting any changes because the most important aspect of original fabric is often unseen in that the original fabric often contains knowledge of means and methods that are lost with the original fabric. Documenting changes is easy but how does one insure that the record of the changes to an artifact and the interpretive significance of those changes is retained with the artifact?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus



-Philip Marshall