What is preservation?

That is a question that always seems to bother me. I hear all the time we are preserving some item but while were at it we need to improve the historic object this or that way so we did it. Is preservation the improvements that we think are necessary or is it trying to keep something as close to a certain time frame in its history as possible no matter the difficulties encountered in keeping it that way?
Some of the examples that strike me are changing the exhaust system on a locomotive to x or y system because we need to make it more efficient, or the gutting out whole sections of historic fabric because it is easier to replace in whole instead of patching areas and preserving as much of the historic fabric as possible. Another good one is we have to have roller bearings we cannot have plain bearings because of this or that. I have to admit, Timken sales job on “Friction” bearings was a success. One of the saddest examples of we have to “improve” this aspect of our museum locomotives that I saw the conversion of oil to grease on the wrist pins of side rods at a certain museum. The then CMO was in such a hurry to go from oil to grease lubrication they did not even remove the genuine horse hair from the oil reservoir. Needless to say many parts did not receive any lubrication until the hair was removed many years latter. This included the wrist pins on a set of rods that had been carefully hammered for the oil ports that now can not be replaced because no documentation of the change was made. One of my favorites seen in many reports is we will weld up the structure and then add fake rivet heads. I understand riveting is a lot more work but you are also then preserving that techniques used in that type of construction. So in the end you not only preserve more of the object but also what it took to create it in the first place? I am also amazed at the recent writings of one preservation organization where they are backdating a car because the draft gear is not of the “right era”. Let me see the car never received the draft gear “improvement” while in regular service and it received other improvements and survived an abandonment/sale. Today because it did not receive an upgrade in draft gear by its previous owner, whose former property we claim we are preserving, it is out of its era. History searches have shown me just because the AFE was written does not mean all of the pieces actually received the improvement and in fact if you do not back date it you have the perfect living example of that industrial quirk. The anomaly tells a story as much as the normal.

So what preservation standards do you use? Do you only replace areas that only need replacing and then do it with in kind material (square bolts for square bolts), or is cost and convenience driving factors in your decision making. At what point do we make so many changes to an object that we have nothing of the original material left or it becomes something that does not represent the past we claim to be preserving. Is having something that runs more important than have a true representation of our past?

So I ask what is preservation and what are we preserving?

Robby Peartree

P. S. any or all spelling errors were not intentional and spell check was used.

There's rough arm-waving style preservation like "Hey, it is STILL a real steam locomotive". or "Genuine Erie Lackawanna trailers. Oh, where's the motorman's station? The what?" Or "No, of course Missouri Scenic Line is not the ORIGINAL name of the railroad..."

Then there's Smithsonian style preservation where they think very hard when they do things like replacing the fabric on a wooden biplane. Oh wait, did they use 5160 or 4340 steel in this part? Was that Railroad Roman (Wabash style) or a unique variant of their own?

The public sure as hell doesn't know the difference. We do.

This is one if the most significant and sadly least discussed issues in railroad preservation...

Using any artifact is consumptive... of original material, but using (at least some of) our artifacts generates public visitation and revenue.

Much of railroad preservation is done by tourist railroads rather than museum/preservation groups. Tourist railroads are in theory, profit generating businesses, and in business, you have to weigh costs, including in this case cost of preservation, against revenue. So things get changed... not in the name of preservation, but in the name of use... There are some very good tourist railroads (Strasburg comes to mind) that in fact are preserving in the name of use, but there are more where they are consuming old equipment... claiming to preserve it... but in fact consuming it...

Without use to generate revenue, there is railroad equipment that would be lost, scrapped or pushed out back and allowed to rust. There are only a few museums like the Smithsonian, the California State Railroad Museum or the California State Railroad Museum who have the resources, and defined mission to display railroad equipment in a "museum" environment... With artifacts preserved as museum objects, with museum care standards. If the big museum model is our only way to preserve railroad artificats then there will be few preserved... there is just so much space in these institutions, and limited money to either build more space or start new institutions.

Other equipment is "preserved" by enthusiast based museums, where equipment is hopefully inside a car house, but may be outside under a blue tarp. This equipment may be in good hands, and well cared for, or may just be in suspended "un-scrapped" state... not preserved... just not yet scrapped... Collectively we don't confuse saved from scrapping with preservation... Saving from scrapping is only the first step on a long and expensive road... to preservation.

Working to preservation standards is one option... but museum standards, written for static objects don't address use and maintenance... Care standards for a painting or a ceramic pot do not translate well to large complicated industrial objects. The Secretary of the Interior's standard for Historic Preservation are one option. They acknowledge that preserving a building may require new utilities, new windows, air conditioning, elevators, all in the name of making that building economically viable, both to give the old building a place in the world, but also so the building can generate income to allow the owner to replace the roof and repaint it as needed.

Railroad preservation can be polarized... choosing one extreme or the other... We rebuild without limit in the name of keeping the locomotive "alive" or choose to not change anything... never operate the locomotive (or car or .... ) "set it on a pedestal"

There are some artifacts that probably belong on a pedestal... there are some locomotives or cars which are probably best used... even used up... In the name of keeping them and the railroad they are associated with alive... We need a ongoing debate to understand which cars can be used, and if used how best used, and how within the appropriate use they are cared for...

How we discuss and debate this issue will answer the question of what is preservation... and whether we are or are not practicing preservation.

Randy Hees

I wrote this before Randy's post, so I may be only repeating much of what he said. With dial-up one is often still living in the past!


"The public sure as hell doesn't know the difference. We do."

Aye, there's the thing, the Elephant in the Room, so's to speak.

There are four words that have multiple definitions, depending on who is using them:
Preservation
Restoration
Conservation
Rebuilding
Preservation, in my opinion, should be closest to Conservation--that is saving as much as possible of the original artifact, and replacing only that which is absolutely necessary--with FULL documentation.
When we use an artifact, we use up a little bit of it, and over the decades, those little bits become big bits. Therefore, one has to decide what purpose there is to using an artifact at all. Here I put in my observation--there is NOTHING like a live steaming locomotive! One cannot understand the beauty and magnificence of such a piece of technology until you see, hear, smell, and feel it in action. So I am not for mounting and stuffing all the existing examples! In addition there is the preservation of crafts and working conditions that keeping such a machine running creates.
Ah, yes, this IS a very complex question!
And we, as the caretakers of such things have a very high calling to preserve this knowledge and technology, even if the public hasn't a clue--after all, our existence on this plane is finite; we are (hopefully) passing on all of this for the as yet unborn.

As Randy has alluded, preservation comes in many forms which is determined by the owner's interest and, more importantly, available resources. It is decision that can be only reached on a case by case basis.

When offered donated items for my museum, one of my first thoughts is toward the required resources to preserve the item. The required preservation resources for toaster oven or a painting are less significant that a 200 ton, 100 ton or even a 50 ton locomotive. As blunt as this may appear, the first step toward preservation is saying "NO" to the initial inquiry of ownership.

What is needed in our industry is a 12 step program for recovering collectors, both private and professional.

Ken,
I wish there was a "like" button for your post!
Hmmm, looking around my home, maybe I need to sign up!

Some rationalize ingeniously that preservation of an historical artifact includes remodeling and modernizing it. They get around the obvious conflict in that position by limiting the “preservation” component of the mission to preserving the standard railroad practice of continually modernizing equipment. So “preservation” is preserving antithesis of preservation, which was historical standard practice.

See: "Recommended Practices" developed by the Association of Railway Museums.





Wesley

This is a fascinating subject. When an artifact is sold or donated to a museum, putting it into a building to protect it from weather or vandals is preservation.

Conservation would consist of things done to reduce the effects of age while in storage. Oiling bearings, removing rust that has developed, possibly polishing and waxing paint all would be part of preservation. Changing oil and occasionally starting engines would be conservation because it gets rid of moisture that can cause damage.

Equipment never should be operated because it uses up the fabric of the artifact. But what if operation provides money to pay for storage and conservation? What about limited operation that uses mostly expendables such as brake shoes?

Restoration raises many issues. Painting an object will use modern paints that are probably different from the original.

What about changing the number or the railroad?

What about back dating an artifact by removing changes that were made after it was manufactured?

What about chnages made to expedite operation? For example, several SP Harriman-style coaches at different museums now have metal bus windows because the original wooden sash was rotten.

So there are lots of questions but few one answer fits all solutions.

Here's an interesting question: where do we draw the line of historic fabric vs. expendable part? Obviously for operation, if the brake shoes are worn out; they need to be replaced.

However, what if a grab iron is bent? Do we remove it and bolt a new one on, or do we heat & beat it back in to shape? Do we replace the worn driver bearing boxes on a steam locomotive, or do we repair them? Do we turn a wheelset that has a flat spot, or do we replace the wheelset? Do we convert a car on static display to 120 volt A.C. or keep iit 32 volt D.C.? If a truck sideframe is cracked, do we replace the side frame or the whole truck?

These questions don't really have a conclusive answer. I think we all have our own take on what is and is not expendable/replaceable; and could debate this for years without getting any consensus.

Again, quoting from the glossary of terms in "Recommended Practices"

From the perspective of a preservationist outside the 501(c)3 umbrella;

Artifacts that fall within the scope of what is being discussed in this thread were changed, modified, painted, repaired, rebuilt by the original owner to such a degree that by the time they came into ownership of the collective "us" on this forum, it was already not exactly like it was when it was originally built.

With most internal combustion locomotives, by the time they are retired and get cycled through industries/short lines/tourist trains/museums, etc. they are sufficiently changed from "as-built" as to ever be considered "original" again, based on some of the sentiments expressed so far.

Example: my GP9 was the first new locomotive delivered by EMD in Western Maryland speedletter paint. During its time on WM and Chessie, it had its nose chopped, its prime mover changed, and there's no telling how many truck changes occurred. It has wore different paint schemes.

So, to purists among us it could never be returned to the condition it was in when delivered in May 1954. But is it preserved? Absolutely: it will outlive us all. Is it restored? Yes, to its February 1962 appearance after the nose chopping and dual headlights were installed.

Instead of counting rivets and engaging in endless debates, we should learn to appreciate what we have left, in whatever form we are able to keep it, so that someday a person can know what a Western Maryland GP9 looked like and sounded like when it worked for it original owner.

wm303 -

No rivet counting and endless debate needed. As a private owner you have preserved your GP9 and determined the guidelines for how it is presented based on the physical condition of the locomotive. Others may comment or criticize your "collections policy", but you made your choice for logical reasons.

Wesley

NPS preservation practices for machinery recommends periodically turning all bearings to ensure lubrication on all surfaces. In many cases, some level of operation is required to ensure adequate lubrication, i.e. steam cylinder surfaces.

As stated previously by others..."The worst thing for a steam locomotive is to make it run. The second worse thing is to let it sit"

And this question makes its cyclical return, getting the usual responses, all of which still have the same merit they had before.......

I'll throw in another consideration: are we only interested in preserving the "'stuff" or are we interested in preserving experiences by providing them by using the stuff as it was historically used? Nice to see a bell, but if you never heard one ring it is meaningless.

dave