https://retrorepairsandrefurbs.com/2022 ... storation/

The subject is different but the issue of substituting for "original" or at least "identical" or "period correct" components is common to any historic object. In this case, many of the replacements are superior quality.

It seems that this restorer faces issues common to some diesel locomotive restorations, although I'm guessing the radio has a lot more commoditized general purpose components than some early first generation unit.

The "restoration" isn't exactly to original or period spec-some components must be replaced with modern (and apparently better) substitutes.

Others it seems are are replaced out of practicality, where the superior thermal efficiency or durability makes them attractive to the point of indispensability.

In either case functional utility is enhanced at the expense of build originality.

My guess is that the discrete components will allow this set to be restored again in the future; where as not a single modern radio or electronic device with miniaturized components can expect to be rebuilt. Now that Apple has followed the lead of other manufacturers and discontinued their IPOD dedicated music players-will anybody decide to rebuild an IPOD, when its obsolescence gives rise to some nostalgia? I know I'm not longing for a PC with a spinning hard drive; SSD's superior access speed, data transfer rates and durability make them preferable in almost all personal use cases where drive size and cost per byte aren't absolute priorities; still even in the realm of PC's; there are enthusiasts who seek out antiquated machines and restore them to operable states.

This would be especially challenging in light of Apple's notorious attempt to frustrate outside repair. (See Youtuber and right to repair activist Louis Grossman).

This actually does make a good point. I think some of us need widen our definition of “historic fabric” as it relates to artifacts that are in use as intended. Otherwise, you just wind up with static displays. This is an argument played again and again here.

On a side note, I’ve experienced the “joy” of repairing modern electronics with the almost microscopic surface mount components. You need the right tools, manual dexterity (a tiny third hand would really be nice) and above all, the steady hands of a brain surgeon. You might consider it a challenge but it certainly ain’t my idea of fun. Sadly, though the components themselves cost little, the labor cost to repair modern circuit boards will likely exceed the cost of replacing whatever it is you’re having repaired. Hence, throw-away electronics. There’s got to be a better way.

I just looked it up.

$989.30 will buy a rebuild kit for a 1949-53 Ford 239 cid flathead V8.

Phil Mulligan

About the price of a new iPhone.

The first 'unfixable machine' I came across was an inexpensive stereo system by Philips, I think in the early '80s, which was assembled by computer in a new plant that I believe was in Brussels. Everything was assembled by robot and bonded together, with the connections soldered, and there was no way to get in to service it even if you broke the case open. Soon after that I came across a Walkman similarly assembled, at a smaller scale, where everything seemed soldered or machine-crimpted to something else, and you'd have to make careful notes and probably use several different melting points of solder to arrange to get it back together.

I would have said something similar about glued-together crApple devices, but they were worth enough that clever rework methods such as 0.19 mm wire to separate glued-on batteries and screens have been formalized, and a healthy market in otherwise-highly-proprietary-and-impossible-to-replicate components has developed. Preston Cook has repeatedly pointed out the difficulty when carefully-made parts like indium/silver main bearing shells have to be serviced or replicated; others have noted the near-impossibility of working with '80s-style functional locomotive circuits and firmware programming that was or is not documented.

My opinion is that if 'restoring to operation', there is no sin in providing modern 'alternative means' if it is adapted to fit the existing historic fabric as much as possible, and any removed historic fabric is carefully preserved. This might extend to an electronics restoration but only if there is sufficient historic value in the electrolytic caps, vacuum tubes, etc. being worked around.

It is amazing what some people will report to the moderators. Yes someone actually reported this as being too far off topic for inclusion here. So lets see what the rest of you say. Is this post of no redeeming value to rail preservation or should it remain here?

Personally I think this thread is quite informative and very much on topic. First off, the linked website does one of the best jobs at a thorough explanation of a restoration project that I have seen. While the item being restored is not of railroad significance, there are railroad radios and early electronics that are similar enough so that the website may be of value in a restoration. Also, the website itself is an excellent example of the proper way to document the restoration of an object, done in a way that explains the changes made and why.

I am not someone who thinks that RYPN should only stick to things on flanged wheels, but should also include discussions that are of relevance to, impact or are adjacent to rail preservation. We can all learn from these discussions, especially from those who are engaged in similar restoration and conservation work. It is a failing of rail preservation to act as if we are in a bubble in which the outside world never enters. According to some, We shouldn't discuss what other preservationists of non rail objects do. We shouldn't discuss how broader trends in society impact us and then we wonder why the rest of the world is passing us by. There are many important issues out there that have a serious impact on this industry, but to discuss them here brings out all the "Karens" who just complain that such and such shouldn't be talked about. How dare we try to stick our heads outside of the bubble!

Tommy may have different opinions about this, but to me having more free and open discussions, even if they get heated at times, are better than not talking about things at all.

I have to admit I am amused by the narrow minded (oh hell let me be blunt, feeble-minded, puerile tattlers who lack the T to voice their complaints publicly) who don't seem to understand that "preservationists" can learn from others who while attempting to preserve other archaic things, have to make difficult decisions about originality vs. functionality and authenticity vs. feasibility.

Personally, I think all cancel requests that are not made publicly should be disregarded and maybe the user should be banned as a cancel culture cretin.

And do I have to point out what condition often presents with an obsession with idiosyncratic order?

Come out and play Sheldon!

The moderation team that you are a part of created three forums which your team describes as:
Recently, your moderation team has allowed many "non-preservation related conversations" to remain in the Interchange forum. This thread is a perfect example because it even has "O/T" (short for Off Topic) in the thread title!

I believe allowing those off-topic threads to remain in the wrong forum (1) drowns out the substantive discussion of railway history and preservation that the Interchange is for and (2) encourages the off-topic posters to continue their Shitposting (wikipedia) ways on RYPN.

"and preservation"

I note "slightly O/T" to acknowledge the indirect and tangential relevance. I explained my purpose for posting, and why I thought there were cross boundary issues emanating from the attempt to revive archaic technology to functionality. I'm sure the antique car guys who faithfully restore vehicles could be of interest to an open mind as well.

You could move on, figure it's not of interest to you, but instead you whine in the shadows.

Nobody is a bigger shitposter than you.

You immediately politicized the post in Kelly A's thread.

Project much?

It seems all you do is complain about propriety. Hall monitor wannabee.

To get back on the right track, pun intended, this topic is relevant. Consider those who run 2nd generation or “kitbashed” locos like ours. If you can’t get a circuit board, you’re going to have to fix it. There is good info in the radio article. Old boards, especially logic boards, will destabilize due to bad electrolytic capacitors. Electrolytics have a limited service life. Starting in the ‘60s (I think), those shrink wrapped, aluminum-canned capacitors usually had, and still do as far as I know, a scored “X” in the top. When they start to go bad, it’s an easy tell as they’ll usually, but not always, start to bulge the top as the scoring enables expansion. They’re one of the first things I’d look at when an old board starts to act up even before I attempt to measure voltages at test points.

Well, the "exact topic" of restoring old radios that have parts that may have aged out, or not be available these days is not really RR Preservation related.

But the topic of RR Preservation projects that require "unobtainable materials" sure seems relevant.

I led the restoration of a 1920 built Plymouth Model BL-2 Locomotive. Gasoline (petrol for folks across the pond) Internal Combustion Engine Powered with a mechanical friction drive transmission and chain drive down to both axles. Tiny little beast, 7 tons, ~ 50 Hp.

The Exterior of the "Engine Cowl" called for "Sheet Iron" applied on a wood frame held up by some upright steel bars. Similar to the way heavy trucks and tractors were built back in those times.

Funny thing about sheet iron, it naturally oxidizes and produces a protective "black oxide" surface layer. Like cast iron castings. Once the surface layer forms the sheet iron is automatically "rust-proof".

When wrapping sheet iron around a wood frame the moisture accumulated in the wood does not cause additional oxidation/rust of the sheet iron.

But back about 2005 when I did that restoration I could not find "sheet iron" available in the sizes needed (about 3'x6' sheets). In fact I could not find it in any size, I believe they stopped making it in the later 1920's.

So out of necessity I selected "Galvanneal" (TM ?) which is a "modern" (ca 1960's) galvanized sheet steel that has a heat treatment (annealing) applied to make it more easily paintable. Normal galvanized steel is VERY difficult to keep paint on. You can get paint on it but the function of the zinc coating is to slowly shed off of the steel base taking any paint with it.

https://kc.allegion.com/kb/article/what ... led-steel/

So the Galvanneal holds up to the moisture on the wooden frame side as well as unobtainable "Sheet Iron" would and I used "etching primer" on the exposed side. As far as I know the paint is still fairly well adhered.

The Galvanneal folks claim it is the "only" paintable galvanized steel, the paint vendors sell primers that they claim "will stick" to any galvanized steel.

Sometimes the fabric store is all out of the material you need.

Cheers, Kevin.

Yes the "X" mark on the top of modern aluminum canned electrolytic capacitors is an intentional weak point so if/when the capacitor fails the pressure at the moment of bursting is much less than a solid metal can would allow.

Persons designing chemical piping would recognize this as a "Burst Disc / Rupture Disc", an intentional weak point in a piping system that contains/directs "over pressure events" in a somewhat controlled fashion/direction.

Similar to a fusible plug in a steam locomotive firebox, or a fuse in an electrical system, or a shear pin in a mechanical transmission.