Correct and well said. "...Restoration, the third treatment, focuses on the retention of materials from the most significant time in a property's history, while permitting the removal of materials from other periods..."

I would argue that it doesn't even need to be the most significant time in a property's (or piece of rolling stock's) history. A car or locomotive could be restored to another period simply because more historic material from that era is extant. Or because one specific era represents the local interest if it had multiple careers on multiple railroads. What is most important about restoration is that documentation is used to get it wherever you want it to be (no guesswork), and that it is interpreted properly, i.e. "This passenger car was built in 1914 but is restored to it's early 1930s appearance because of x, y and z."

Just because I'm in that kind of mood tonight:


--Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There, Lewis Carroll, 1871

I guess this one falls under the ARM category of "restoration":

Searching Youtube, found this 2-minute vid of a wood coach project at PSRM -- 'Jim Crow' Passenger Railroad Car Comes Back to Life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7Vfv-1EX9M

(Video by the San Diego Union-Tribune).

I see a discussion of a lot of detail issues in this thread, but no mention of the big picture.

Ask two questions about your organization:
1. Is it likely to exist 100 years from now?
2. If the answer to 1 is yes, then is the collection going to be in better condition than it is now?

If you can pass this simple test, then your organization is definitely engaged in preservation. If not, you have some work to do.

In car collections, there are "preserved cars" and there are "restored cars". There are also custom cars which do have a place, but not in the discussion of preserving railroad equipment.

A preserved car can range from 'mint' to being preserved with all of the rust, faded paint, 'patina', bailing wire, and wear and tear it got from normal use. Bonus if it is operational. For railroad equipment, it would be like preserving a locomotive as-is in the condition it was in when it was retired, and only giving it a cleaning and making the repairs necessary to make it operational. Very little of the artifacts in railroad museum collections are good candidates for this kind of preservation, because they were often allowed to deteriorate far beyond the "as retired" state, and a restoration becomes necessary.

When an artifact is restored, the kind of restoration I think railroad museums should compare to is called "concours" restoration, which means using parts and materials with the original specifications wherever possible, and restoring everything as accurately as possible to as good or better than original condition. Since most railroad equipment gets modified over its service life, the equivalent to the concours standard would be selecting a specific point in the artifact's history, and then making the effort to restore it as accurately as possible, with the information available, to that point in history. The narrower the time frame, the better. The key here is that "restoration" absolutely does not necessarily mean "original condition".

Furthermore in concours restoration, there is also "driven" classes, which makes allowances for the wear and tear that would come from at least occasional use. This is probably the best standard that operated railroad equipment in museums can practically achieve. Basing railroad equipment restoration on this kind of standard, not being too picky about original and usage caused imperfections and damage is okay. I just think that institutional railroad museums should avoid making their own modifications that deviate from conditions that an artifact had during its pre-museum service life.

I would argue quite a bit of "private varnish" qualifies as the latter.

One of the things I find interesting about the responses is what is the artifacts history? What makes it historically important? Are there other objects with a similar purpose or history? Did it take place in a significant event? If restoration work is to be done what is the nature of the work and what techniques do we use. Do we use a modern technique or do we take the time to relearn an old technique to ensure it passes from one generation to the next?
For me at the age of 13 and just starting to work on SP 3420, I wanted to see the locomotive run. My fascination with steam locomotives was at its peak when the machines operated. An unexpected lesson in preservation was going to begin for me with the R&LHS national convention in El Paso in 1985. Mr. White attended the convention and heard about the various proposals for restoring, transporting across the state of Texas and even operating El Paso & Southwestern #1 for the Texas Sesquicentennial. Already familiar with the locomotive he went to another letter writing campaign to once again educate a new group of people on the historical significance of the locomotive. I would be given an opportunity to read with his opinions on preserving the artifact.
Built in 1857 EP & SW #1 is the only Breese & Kneeland locomotive left. An interesting fact about the locomotive is that a significant amount of the locomotive remains from the builder. Mr. White believes it was at least 80% if memory serves and Mr. Conrad believe it may be more. Given the time fame of this locomotive’s operating life you have to remember that for this locomotive it survived the civil war and that air brakes and knuckle couplers were add ons! It was retired just before the I.C.C. became involved in locomotive inspection that we are accustomed to today. The locomotive survived because of the idea that it should to be displayed in front of the general office building. Given that it has been on display since 1909, #1 spent 52 years in service and over 105 and counting years on display. It is an artifact from the past where no one alive today probably remembers when it operated in regular service. It is an artifact without a voice and while people have written histories on it there are still things that we are still learning about the locomotive.
When Mr. Conrad did the restoration on the locomotive I know there were some missing parts that were reproduced. In the case of machining a particular part I understand he wanted a similar surface finish to that would have been produced in its operating life. To get it he wanted to go back to older machining techniques to get the finish he wanted.
It is relatively easy to find someone who has graduated from a local trade school and understands the modern techniques than someone versed in practices of a bygone era. For me Preservation is not only determining the historical significance of the object and how to best preserve it but also when work needs to be done preserving the techniques that were used to originally create the object or repair it. Every object has a story to tell of how it survived to this point, so what is that story and how do we share it with each other. How do we choose to preserve the actual artifact, its history, and its story for both our visitors today but those who come tomorrow? EP &SW #1 as with many of the artifacts out there survived due to luck and sometimes foresight of some individuals. By both understanding that any historical artifact is more than just a nice ride back in time but also a story teller about a previous time if we choose to look and listen I think is lost on many. Shop work and operating can be a preservation step if one is careful about how it is done. If one does not understand the artifacts past, how it got to the present (in some cases including the change it went though to survive) and what story it has for the future then how can one “preserve it” for the future if all we do today is destroy what was there in the past to a point that it can not be recreated.

Robby Peartree

You don't. You recreate it all as an operating replica, and never worry about the next broken bolt or dinged bit of jacket.

dave

There is no standard definition of preservation; at some point you generally have to strike a balance and compromise. Do you want to preserve a static artifact as it actually was, or preserve the process under which it was used and wear it out in the process, or preserve the ethos and identity of an oparating railway, in which case you are not just recording history, but going out to make some more. All of these are right, depending on the circumstances.

Sometimes, "the choice is between death and a new life".

Tim

I need to take exception with the statement (bold is mine)



There are clearly specific standards, as mentioned in many of the above posts... (Secretary of Interior, ARM and various international standards) Preservation standards are as technical as boiler rules and regulations...

Unlike boiler rules, failure to follow the standards will not shut you down... but they will effect the artifact, may effect your and your organization's reputation, and can prevent you from getting grants from preservation savvy organizations.

Collectively railroad "preservationist" are good at repairing, but not so good at preservation, and while repairing may be good, it sometimes destroys the artifact or elements of the artifact unnecessarily... We have proven good at failing to preserve by inaction and poor storage...

It is easy to be ignorant. Our collective ignorance has not helped our cause...

Randy

Randy, I think one real problem is the lack of a standard specifically for large exposed mechanical artifacts. Kludging standards based on furniture, textiles, or stationary structures leaves a bit to be desired. So, while those standards are out there and can provide broad perspectives which can be applied, unless you are specifically looking for grants from funders who base their decisions on those standards, it isn't necessarily a given that your group is going to adopt them as their own - much more likely to get frustrated and devise something practical that works for the immediate need.

The real ignorance comes in when the thought process and debate doesn't happen at all........because nobody knows enough to think about it that way. The amount of respect a coat of paint gets compared to retaining square head bolts is kind of astounding if you come from a more formal preservation perspective.

I'm less concerned about what you decide to do than that you have made a conscious decision based on a real thought process first.

dave

Sometimes fundamental preservation of a precious artifact is the right thing to do, but it isn't the only alternative. Not everyone can get a grant.

I am associated with a locomotive, "Vulcan". It was the Works shunter at Vulcan Foundry and is quite unique. We have recently got it into traffic for the first time since 1961. We went to some trouble to get it as accurate as possible wherever possible, e.g sourcing brass contersunk whitworth bolts to secure the accurate replica worksplates. However, we also fitted it with passenger brakes, which it never had in its working life, so there is some discreet but distinctly not original plumbing...

The result is that it can be hired out; it is in considerable demand and our aim is to save up the hire fees to ensure there is enough money to carry out the next overhaul and ensure the future preservation of the locomotive as far as we can. If we had not done this, no one else was offering to undertake the restoration and the engine had been deteriorating for a long time. However this means there will be wear and tear and replacement of some bits of original fabric from time to time. We do not anticipate qualifying for grants in the forseeable future so we have a business plan instead.


Tim