An article in the latest RAILFAN & RAILROAD has me puzzled. The author says that "preservation" is keeping an artifact exactly as it was found, with "original fabric" (wood, steel, brick, etc.) whereas "restoration" is taking the artifact and reworking it to make it operative, usable, etc. again especially for public use, which may destroy the "original fabric."

I have been understanding these words in the opposite sense: "restoration" is restoring the artifact to its original appearance, type of materials, etc. while "preservation" is stabilizing the artifact and then making it available for continued use even if some non-destructive modification is required.

Can anyone clarify this issue for me? Are the two terms used interchangeably? It seems that the article author's definition of "preservation" amounts to doing almost nothing to an artifact, except stabilization to prevent further deterioration. I don't see that as a highly useful concept in railway preservation, as it would result in nothing of interest to anyone except railway archaeologists.

Boy, this is sure a simple topic, eh? I'll be reading this thread to see how many interpretations of "preservation" and "restoration" we'll get, none of them wrong. And the fact that the definitions we see in R&R doesn't necessarily mean that those definitions are accurate (with apologies to the author whoever they are).

Preservation. To me, this term could have a multitude of meanings, but they all boil down to the base definition--taking an artifact and saving it from being destroyed. That's preservation in its base meaning. I would throw out the "original fabric" term when someone talks about preserving an artifact. What the heck does "original" fabric mean? Original when the artifact was built or fabricated or when it was found? Remember that railroads and streetcar systems routinely destroyed the original fabric of their in-service cars many times over down through the years of service of the particular car.

Restoration. This is where things can get tricky IMHO. Where is the dividing line between restoration and replication? It's probably safe to say that a relatively intact PCC car that ran in the Newark subway that has been "restored," after hours of volunteer time and many bucks in repairs and replacement of critical components that were totally unserviceable. However can you call this next example a restoration? Take the decrepit shell of an 1893 single truck car and "restore" it with 75% new wood and with electrical and mechanical components it never had while it was in service. Is this 1893 car a restoration or perhaps a replica of what it looked like in 1893? I say that this is restoration as well, albeit one that certainly is at variance with the original "fabric" of the streetcar.

Are the repairs to the damaged rail cars at the B&O Museum a restoration of those cars? I'd say so, even though the Museum used quite a bit of new wood in some of them because they were damaged so heavily.

I also say that you cannot use the terms interchangeably. A restored railcar or streetcar is certainly preserved. But if a streetcar is preserved but then stored as found as a "chicken coop" and merely put under cover (hopefully!), I doubt anyone would label it restored.

Thanks!

You've pretty much summed up his point of view in your reply.

Restoration, as ABC defines it, means returning the artifact to service. For example, 4449 was removed from the park and "restored" to operation. As we all know, that type of restoration almost always involves some degree of alteration of the "original fabric", since operating with the original boiler tubes on a 100 year old engine can be hazardous to your health.

(Of course it would be a rare engine indeed that still had the boiler tubes that the factory installed when it came into the restoration shop. Are the 4th set of boiler tubes "original" just because the railroad installed them? What if the railroad in question is the PD&Q shortline, the engine's 3rd owner?)

Also, be careful when "backdating" an artifact to "original condition". As an example, if you're not careful, you might turn a Reading T1 4-8-4 into a 2-8-0 if you have your imaginary "wayback machine" set for "the day it left the factory".

Preservation, as he sees it, means protecting the artifact while disturbing it as little as possible. We're not talking operation here, we're talking John Bull and Southern nRailway 1401, placed on a pedestal, indoors, stuffed and mounted. Even repainting the artifiact is open for debate, since doing so destroys part of the fabric. So, do you leave the original, and most likely old and faded, paint on the engine, or do you repaint it as accurately as possible? Then again, to confuse things even more, they did operate the John Bull briefly a couple of decades ago! Then they put it back in the "glass case"

The older the engine is, and the more work that's been done, the more we get to the "George Washington's Hatchet" issue, where it's had 5 new handles and had the head replaced twice, but it's still the original hatchet! When you put a new boiler on old 97, are you rebuilding, restoring, or creating a replica?

Once we're done defining all of those terms, we'll try nailing Jello to a tree, and debate how many angels can dance on the head of a grease pin...

Even the word Preservation can be vague. I entered Railway Preservation at Wikipedia and had this come up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_preservation
However in talking to contacts at major museums what a curator (from Latin to care) wants is the most original unchanged artifact, regardless of its operating condition.

A battle of Britain Spitfire would be a good example.
A restored Spit would fly, but would only be some percentage of the original aircraft.

A museum would much prefer one found in a forgotten hangar, parked after its last sortie in August of 1940, but nothing more, to preserve.
If they thought the seat needed new fabric a history museum would not replace it but carefully cover over it, or catalog and store the original fabric somewhere else.

"Railway Preservation", as used in many formats, including the name of this site, seems to be a bit of a misnomer. It paints with a broad brush, and seems to cover the concept as a whole, while ignoring the more specific questions of individual artifacts.

As an example, if you are trying to operate a "preserved railway", you generally want to use old equipment such as steam and vintage coaches. In effect, you've preserved the experience, with the vintage equipment, but you haven't preserved the rolling stock, since by using it, you're bound to put more wear on the equipment, require rebuilding and replacement etc. etc.

If you think this concept is tricky in railway preservation, take a look at the airplane hobby. Those folks who like "warbirds" and "round motor" planes have an even bigger problem. The engines wear out quickly and need rebuilt option. Then there's the wings, talk about "historic fabric", many of them are literally made of fabric! Also, while a mechanical breakdown on a tourist railway can be a big problem, in a vintage plane it can not only destroy the artifact, it can, and on occasion does, take the lives of the pilot and/or passengers. Be thankful you don't have to deal with those issues when deciding whether or not to restore something!

ARM Recommended Practices defines these terms as follows:

Preservation: The act of keeping an object intact and safeguarding it from any
further changes beyond those which it has already undergone.

Restoration: The act of returning an existing object to an original appearance and
condition through treatments such as cleaning, painting, removing later
additions, replacing missing parts, etc. Original fabric or exact reproduction
parts, finishes, or materials may be used. All work is based on a specific
restoration plan for that object. If an object is restored and intended for
operation or demonstration, subsequent work performed to ensure continued
use is often not classified as restoration.

http://www.railwaymuseums.org/static/documents/RecommendedPractices.pdf

Under these terms, DCTS 0522, shown here is being preserved as a display object. Someday the Museum plans to restore the car to its second livery dating to the early 1900s.

Wesley

The Association of Railway Museums, Recommended Practices for Railway Museums, 1997, provides the following definitions:

Preservation: The act of keeping an object intact and safeguarding it from any
further changes beyond those which it has already undergone.

Replica: The use of new or non-historic materials or items to accurately duplicate an
original object.

Restoration: The act of returning an existing object to an original appearance and
condition through treatments such as cleaning, painting, removing later
additions, replacing missing parts, etc. Original fabric or exact reproduction
parts, finishes, or materials may be used. All work is based on a specific
restoration plan for that object. If an object is restored and intended for
operation or demonstration, subsequent work performed to ensure continued
use is often not classified as restoration.

I have to think about this topic for a bit, there's a few ways to see it and interpret it, but it's likely the true definition of the terms is what you want for an answer. The lines can be blurry though.

I also see the term "preservation" of a snap shot of something at a particular point in time, and not something as "original fabric". You can "preserve" a RS-3m or a CF7. Are they what they were when they rolled brand spanking new off the assembly line....NO...but they can be preserved for what they are, or have become, at a particular point in thier lives. Neither of them would be considered original fabric.

Restoration of an object with museum practices and rebuilding a object (like a steam locomotive to operation) are two diffrent things. Both are needed in the world of railroad museums and tourist railroad but they often get called the same thing by the public and those working in the field.

I see I opened up a the proverbial "can of worms" here with my original question, and thanks to everyone for your input. I think I should explain specifically why I asked this question. I am involved with the project to restore/preserve the Keokuk (Iowa) Union Depot. Discussing our goals with other members of the group, we have concluded that our purpose is not to "restore" the building. Restoring the structure, which underwent changes during some eight decades of passenger service, would involve a decision about which era we should go back to. (If we were going all the way back to 1891 when it was constructed, we would have to install gas lighting, a slate roof, etc.) Instead, our purpose is to "preserve" the structure, as opposed to allowing it be razed and forgotten, and such preservation will require some sort of end use other than as a passenger depot since there has been no passenger service here since 1967. For us, "restoring" means putting back into some earlier condition, while "preserving" means keeping something from being destroyed, which is why we have styled our effort as a "preservation project." It was upon reading the article in R&R that I wondered whether we had our terminology correct, and raised the issue.

Generally, preservation is preserving an object as-is. Restoration is returning something to an earlier appearance or configuration. Rehabilitation is altering an object for a new use.

Projects can involve different aspects of all 3.

I'm surprised that there's a Secretary of the Interior's Standards for maritime resources but not railroad resources:

http://www.cr.nps.gov/local-law/arch_stnds_10.htm

http://www.cr.nps.gov/local-law/arch_stnds_8_2.htm

http://www.hnsa.org/standa.htm

Perhaps, then, our project is preservation/rehabilitation.

You might want to at least take a look at the The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. These may give you some ideas about how to approach your building project.

Here is the link to the intro web-site page:
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties

If applying for grants or National Register status for a preserved car, locomotive or depot we need to understand the words, and their technical meaning...

In general, Preservation means keeping and caring for a historical artifact as found (or restored).

Repair, rehabilitation or maintenance means work to maintain the artifact as found, possibly in good working order.

Restoration means replacing lost features, and returning the object to a specific earlier time.

Adaptive reuse means reworking the artifact for a modern current use.

Randy

Using the same terms with different parameters;

Nancy Pelosi is preserved; Dolly Parton is restored.