This came in on my daily news feed today:

"Some good news: Threats to the authenticity of historical sites are leading to new initiatives to preserve Samarkand’s history in a sustainable manner. These efforts include “restoration work that is historically accurate and caters to the needs of locals as well as tourists; protection of original materials, rather than replacing them; and preservation of Uzbek history and culture that falls outside the traditional ‘Silk Road’ fantasy,” writes Kenny.

Sometimes, everything old does not have to be new again."

OK a railroad isn't the Silk Road but how many times do we see things made smoother, cleaner, shinier and otherwise "improved" relative to their historic norm? Bothers me as much as seeing a simple paint job referred to as a "restoration." Patina? As delivered VS normal in service? I also note how context is a prioritized consideration in the clip above.

Here's another clip:

"Vandals have defaced North America’s oldest rock art, scratching names and dates into geometric designs at Big Bend National Park in Texas. The petroglyphs, in the Indian Head section of the park, are believed to be at least 3,000 years old. Authorities say the damage is irreversible, the New York Times reports. "

Is making something look like it didn't also a form of vandalizing history just because it's prettier?

Once we get our BODs straightened out maybe this is worth a thought or two.

The issue with restoration, is that someone paid for the work.
So, when you're done, how tough is it to get that person/group to accept that it's 'like new' but made to look like it's used a little?
Nope, most folks would think you didn't do a full job and are trying to get over on them.
As for vandalism, a friend of mine did a serious survey of the pyramids on the Giza plateau. He said at the top of one, he found names scratched into the blocks at the top by folks who he thought were French and British soldiers during the Napoleonic wars, alongside dates that led him to think they were from soldiers from WW1 and WW2. He wondered at what point they become part of the pyramid as historical things in their own right?

This is a tricky subject and I believe one that needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

I remember reading about the Henry Ford museum trying to decide how much to change/modify the Rosa Parks bus. In the end, they decided to back-date it so that it would appear as it did when Rosa Parks was riding it. But that of course meant removing parts of the actual historical bus and replacing them with reproductions.

I think it's important that organizations are open to having discussions and perhaps even vote. There can be multiple views and not a clear right or wrong in this type of decision.

If we are going to operate equipment, things have to be replaced. But can they be replaced with historically accurate parts when possible? (putting modern desk-style controls in an E8 is an example of crossing that line perhaps?).

This has been beaten to death in many threads here and will continue to be. I look at artifacts in two ways. Are you saving it as a historical artifact to be statically displayed for educational purposes or are you using it to provide an experience. The maintenance requirements for one are totally different from the other.

For buildings at least, this was worked out long ago with the creation of the Secretary of the interior’s Standards.

There’s even a Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for maritime resources.

I’d think it’d be helpful if there was one for rail resources.

We kinda do: https://heritagerail.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/HRA_Toolkit_April_25_2019_FINAL.pdf