Practical Issues in Preserving Steam Locomotives

A lot of people do not realise that the Stonehenge we see & know today, benefits from Victorian and early 1920-30s restorations.... where some of the standing stones were re-assembled, having fallen over at some point!
View attachment 12011

The other interesting fact is that it used to be possible to rent a hammer in order to break a bit of one of the stones off as a sort of souvenir.

 

That is - genuinely - what English Heritage proposed to do with the chimneys of Battersea Power Station.

 

the point is however that we should be more responsible nowadays, North Star got cut up back then, we would never do it now.....just as we would never permit bits of stonehenge to be taken away.

 

IIRC the argument is that to replace the very expensive mono bloc casting with not quite so expensive separate castings - as was done in BR days - would compromise the integrity. As for replacing the mono bloc, not impossible just needs someone with very deep pockets to fund it.

 

Interesting point of view. So if the world's supply of RR Merlin's ran out and the only way of restoring a Spitfire to flight would be to use an Allison V-12 from the USA or a Klimov V-12 from Russia, would you be happy for that to happen even though the resulting aircraft would sound different and look slightly different and thus not really be a Spitfire? It's a conundrum I know.

 

Stonehenge with modern replacemnet stones would have absolutely no more meaning than a random pile of stones. It's the History and the age of it that is important, it needs to be kept as original as possible as so should Green Arrow. Build a replica if needs be, it will be many years before the likes of Tornado are of historical importance.

 

I think with the use of polly patterns the cost would be about a 1/3rd compared to traditional methods,over the last year new cylinder have become the norm.

 

I'm not 100% sure about that but if there were only one spitfire and the engine were irreparable then I wouldn't object to someone building a replica. If the original engine were also unique then I don't see why it couldn't be archived rather than scrapped

 

It's a fine line (and a perennial debate!). The important issue with archaeology though is that once something is gone, it is gone, and it is difficult to know now what techniques may be possible in the future.

As an example (another aeroplane one): in the Fleet Air Arm museum there is a Corsair fighter that, for various reasons, has ended up a complete time capsule, complete with a huge array of original markings on components etc. A very detailed study of the aeroplane has revealed a wealth of detail about construction practices in the US aeroplane industry during the war, in many cases demonstrating that what actually happened "on the ground" varied significantly from what the documentation said was supposed to have happened. Had the aeroplane been flown at some point in its preservation history, all that information would have been lost.

Of course, in that case, it helps that Corsairs aren't especially rare, so it is possible to have the best of both worlds - there are enough that are flying that one or two preserved as time capsules isn't a great "loss" and in many ways represents an important academic gain. (There are other examples: for example, there is some fascinating archaeology in the B29 "Enola Gay", but "Fifi" is also able to demonstrate a B29 in flight; similarly the Hendon Avro Lancaster is as close as we will ever get to knowing what a wartime Lanc was like, but the BBMF and Canadian Lancasters can demonstrate the same aeroplane in flight, even if they have a vast array of replaced material).

I guess where it is controversial is where the type you are preserving for archaeological reasons is also the sole survivor of a type. At which point it really depends on how significant you think the potential archaeological discoveries in the future might be. I don;t suppose anyone would suggest "restoring" Rocket now, or "Locomotion" or "Puffing Billy": they have far more to tell us in their current state, especially since it is likely that in years to come non-destructive testing technologies will develop such that we can find out much more without having to compromise the fabric of the originals. Whereas with Green Arrow, I suspect the case is less compelling. The monobloc cylinder is clearly significant, but the question is whether what would be destroyed in removing it is also significant (i.e. the method of attachment to the frames would end up destroyed, even if you preserved the cylinder itself). I guess that requires a curatorial perspective.

Those judgments are much easier in cases where (1) multiple examples of a type exist or (2) where the documented history shows that very little of what makes the type significant remains. To take tangible examples: I can't see the point of ever restoring to running condition 34051, since Bulleid pacifics are common, so it seems reasonable to preserve at least one that has a definite tangible connection to the event that gives the locomotive significance. Equally, Flying Scotsman is unique but the documentary evidence is clear that it has been so modified and repaired over its life that its current significance is essentially as a living object, not a historical one. Locos like Green Arrow, Lode Star or - closer to home - the Adams Radial tank are much more shades of grey about what is right.

Tom

 

that seems sensible...better than the rather naive "lets steam everything" approach

Possibly a new name needs creating to seperate the heritage movement from true "preservation" (which is what the NRM does in a large part) .

 

Arguably Stonehenge isn't fulfilling its original purpose, partly because it has been partly 'restored' and partly because we don't really know what its purpose was when it was built. It fulfills a function as a monument and for the druids as somewhere for them to focus their celebrations, but is it fulfilling its original purpose?

 

sure may as well knock it down then ..... ?

 

Isnt that why it is now, mainly, called the Heritage movement rather than the preservation movement?

 

I can only refer you to the very top of this page......

 

Yes, they have unique flying examples.

 

Hmmm, having been there a few times and enjoyed the excellent evening displays that should have come to mind.

 

Isn't this a topic for another thread?


Keith

 

If we are being more responsible then almost all of the steam fleet, and diesels should be immediately retired and stored in air conditioned rooms to protect for the future.

Preservation is largely about recreation and celebration in its current form. Only when the current generation has had its jollies and the next have less skill will it turn to conservation.

It's the duty of the current generation to provide the best most complete collection to allow that to happen... If that means making parts before the sunsets then so be it...as 200 years from now it may be like stonehenge without knowledge of purpose.... Compounding skills for 1000 perhaps ?

Had columbine had got a new boiler in the 50's the current and future generations may have had opportunity to enjoy it instead of a knackered example that no one will ever fully appreciate.

On 4771 no ones suggesting to scrap the original part.. As an exhibit it could well be the only time anyone can actually see a monobloc actually looks like