Hi All,

The Alexander Chapter-NRHS has completed about 90% of the structural repairs and restoration to our narrow gauge Lawndale boxcar and we will soon start on the siding and flooring. As we approach this phase of the project, we have some internal debate on the flooring and how to approach the repairs/replacement. Visually, this will be very important, as at least 50% of the flooring will need to be repaired.

First, and maybe easiest, would be to simply replace the rotten floor planking with entirely new planks. This is of course structurally sound, and historically, that's how the car was built. But it is new material, and the patina will differ from the original flooring. And in some ways, this method does smack of the classic tale of "this is George Washington's hammer, but it has had two heads and three handles replaced since he owned it."

Secondly, we could patch some of the flooring planks by using 3/4 of one and 1/4 of another, etc. This allows us to use more original material, and the patina matches, but of course, this is not how the car was built, and the seams of where the floor is patched will show (though we could cover them with old crates, etc, that will be part of our display.)

What is the consensus on the best way to proceed in this phase of the project. We will of course have some entirely new planks, there's no way to avoid that, but should we patch where we can, or not?

Sorry if this seems trivial, but we are trying to do the best job possible in the restoration of this car.

Thanks in advance,

Matt Bumgarner

You have three sources of concern here: The patina, the actual dimensions of the old lumber, and the fact that 50% of it is bad. I would suggest that the entire floor be replaced. Replacement would involve a mill to cut the new lumber to the correct old dimensions. And as you stated, the patins will be different. When we stripped our N6B down to the chassis, the 2x3s were in fact 2" x 3". This will result in us milling all of the lumber when we put it back together.

Avoid this additional milwork and cost, and replace the entire floor. But keep the good material that comes out because you never know when it might come in handy.

Later!
Mr. Ed

Well, we already have had the replacement planks milled to the exact size of the original, but we didn't get enough for the whole floor. We really don't want to replace the whole floor anyway, because that would entail removing 3/4 of the original interior walls, which we definitely were staying away from since it is in nearly pristine condition.

Plus, it again would smack of the "George Washington Hammer" story, and to many, the more original material used the better.

Thanks,

Matt

Dear Matt:
I would certainly use as much of the old material as possible, even if doing so would be a bit more work. In my opinion, the more original material that can be saved and reused, the closer you are to having restored rather than replicated something.
Good luck!
J.David

The new material can be stuck back against the bulkheads so it isn't easily visible looking through the open doors. Pile some historically appropriate cargo on it if you like.

dave

So 50% of the floor needs to be replaced?

I would divide the floor into three areas: the 25% at the A end, the middle 50%, and the 25% at the B end.

I would use full-length planks from the ends to replace planks in the middle 50%.

I would then use the ends as you suggest to patch as much of the end areas as possible (putting all short butts on the same side so they can be covered as you say).

Then I would use new planking for the remainder, maybe staining it to more closely match existing flooring.

JAC

My thoughts are that since you HAVE to use some new material anyway, work that into your finished display - sort of a before and after. Where you have to make a patchwork to use as much original material as possible, you could try working it into the corners and then cover it with old crates as you mentioned. I assume you plan to open the car for display, so it would make sense to use the new materials in the center portion which will receive the most traffic.

Kudos to you chapter for undertaking such painstaking restoration of this historic equipment. Prior to the discovery of this car, I only knew of the Lawndale Railroad from the recollections of a gentleman associated with Ferrum College in Virginia. Mr. Ray Warlick grew up in the area served by the Lawndale and recalled watching its operations as boy. He was an avid supporter of Ferrum athletics and always dressed in black slacks and shirt with a bright gold sport coat. I met him when I worked at the Franklin County News-Post as sports editor and eventually discovered he was also a rail enthusiast. So this project gives me a bit of a personal connection, and I'm sure he would applaud your endeavors.

One might consider that if the railroad was still in business, their woodworkers might have to replace planks from time to time, so there would be some new lumber and some with "patina" (and maybe even some "distress" from rough loads).

Good museum practice allows for replacement, if it is identifiable as such.

I would use the old as possible, then use the new. The difference patina will identify the new. Having new milled to mach existing as you have done is critical.

Splicing the old floor boards in a heroic effort to save them would create something a railroad shop never did… they would replace as needed, but not splice a floor board, so if you did it would create confusion among the car’s story, car building techniques, and history.

I would consider placing the new boards either where the old rotten boards were, or only at the center, as in railroad service the ends were more protected, and saw less traffic so were replaced less often. It is not necessary to hide them.

You might want to follow the following link http://www.mnhs.org/preserve/conservati ... ox_car.pdf

It describes how a professional museum organization, the Minnesota Historical Society (not a railroad museum) approached restoration of a wooden box car. The article and scholarship can be criticized… they heroically preserve what was probably a 1980’s amateur restoration without questioning the scholarship or reviewing any documentation from that restoration. They don’t use railroad terms for parts, even with Car Builder’s Dictionaries from the cars period commonly available…

On the other hand we can learn from how they approach the object, cleaning first, replacing only lost paint and other material.

For interpretation, replacing flooring in the center and then explaining to visitors why you replaced it, and that the railroads also did exactly the same thing for the same reasons, probably increases the educational value of the exhibit.

All of the merits and shortcomings of each proposal mentioned in this thread are exactly what we are seeing among our crew.

Right now, just from the necessity of the situation, is that the "A" end of the car, from the edge of the boxcar door to the end, will be all original flooring. This flooring is also underneath some original walls, so we don't want to pull these walls up to retrieve the flooring under it to redistribute at, say, the other end or center, as has been suggested.

The center of the car, roughly the door area, must have entirely new planks as the car was sitting outside for sixty years, much of that without doors, and that's where the worst rot occured. (as an unrelated side note, none of the floor planking in this area was nailed down- not a single nail- unlike the rest of the flooring on the A and B ends. We can't figure out why)

On the B end of the car, about 80% of the flooring on that end has damage of some sort, so that is the area we need to concentrate on.

My biggest concern, from an appearance standpoint, is that we will be replacing all of the siding, and coupled with so much new flooring, it might look like we just (or should have) just built a a brand new car. However, with a mostly original floor(patina-wise), most of the walls, and entire ceiling/roof, it will have much more of the original fabric.

If we cover up the seams of the originals that are patched with period freight, we won't have to explain the seams from an educational standpoint. Plus, from a restoration standpoint, we photograph and document EVERY work session, and in a master file, even postings from this website are used.

Thanks again for all the suggestions.

Matt

Matt and company,

I would have to second Randy's comments on this issue. If you intend to display the car as original as possible, there is really no need to do any work other than stabilization and preservation of the existing fabric. What your group is doing on this car is an additional step. At this point you are doing a "rebuild" or a "restoration." Rebuilds involve preserving the methods used by railroad in that the work conducted on the car uses period appropriate techniques and materials so the the final result looks as if it was conducted by the railroad during the period of significance. A restoration is a different animal in that all work is done to maintain the integrity of the artifact (ie: make sure you do not hurt it's chances to be seen as a "piece of the true cross"). I often say "some artifacts are a process, not a product" and by this I mean that some locomotives, cars, etc. are not particularly historic in the fabric they contain, but the process of rebuilding is what is historic. Some of MacGregor's discussion of the Ardenwood collection discusses this issue. Regardless, I think that using methods which do not emulate some form of period appropriate practice are much more disruptive to future interpretation than losing a bit of historic fabric. After 20 years, the patina on said woodwork will begin to look quite similar to the original. Imagine if you were having to replace some of this fabric then and you did not know that the splices you discuss have absolutely NO historicity. This is how history becomes clouded by good intentions. Fight future misinterpretation in whatever solution you chose.

Best,

Stathi

PS: Documentation although a necessary and VERY important step is also the most perishable aspect of museum curation. Treat each artifact as if all documentation could disappear (ie: Do not do something that is not easily distinguishable from original fabric, etc. just because "you have the documentation"). I am a professional archaeologist, and trust me, documentation is lost for sites and collections all the time. Those wonderful CDs we put everything on have a curation life span of only 5 years. If you are using special programs, operating systems, older versions of programs, etc. it might be even less.

Stathi

Heh. Digital media retention is a whole 'nother issue. A digital collection is for all practical purposes indestructible if care is not botched in some way. This requires diligence more than skill - keeping up with media format changes, making sure backups actually contain the content, making sure backups are distributed, etc.

Robert

Thanks to all of the replies received on this thread. As in our group, the "original patched material vs new material" both have very valid points of view.

Today I met with our local county museum curator who has an impressive resume' in history education, practical experience with architectural rebuilds, and a long list of structures he has assisted in obtaining National Historic Registry certification.

He was of the opinion that spliced "original fabric" outweighed "new material-original methods" and recommended that we use the original flooring and splice where necessary (he quite liked the suggestion of covering the splices with period freight also). It was his view that our ultimate project is the "preservation of the original Lawndale car" rather than "preservation of the methods that were used to build a Lawndale car" although he as well could see the validity of both sides of the coin.

From his perspective, the tie-breaker in the argument fell from some criteria of the National Historic Registry, namely, that the preserved structure must contain at least 60% of its original fabric. With such a heavy weighting on the original material, he felt it best to use what we could from the old floor.

I'm not saying that's what we will do- one way or the other- but I thought his thoughts and those criteria of the National Registry were another interesting piece of the puzzle.

Thanks

Matt Bumgarner