Retrograde restorations.

As the title suggests this is to cover those 'restorations' where one feels that it has gone the 'wrong' way.

As an example, my choice falls on GNR Atlantic No. 251 ''restored" back to its 1902 condition. This, because as originally built there was nothing outstanding about their performance. However, it was only following rebuilding in Nigel Gresley's time as CME with 32-element superheaters and piston valves that they made a name for themselves, particularly when working Pullman trains in the 1930s. To substitute a slide valve chassis and remove the superheater seriously hobbled an excellent locomotive to my mind.

Comment and other examples...........?

 

6023 back to single chimney?

 

46229 with its bathtub.

 

If you're going to go down this route, most of the National Collection is "wrong" to one degree or another, from the Stirling Single "preserved" in 1907, to the Class 87, added to the collection about 6-7 years ago.

 

Isn't the GNR Atlantic a bit of a mish-mash of parts as it was half-heartedly backdated on withdrawl which makes it unlike any of the locos as they were built or as withdrawn

 

Most of them were, 1000 is a real dog's dinner of a machine, and Stirling No.1 was a stripped shell in 1907...

 

True, Anthony, but we love them anyway

 

The general gist of it seems to be it got replacement frames with slide valves rather than piston valves, and the boiler had the superheater header and tubes removed, but the flue tubes were left in place. The chimney was also repositioned back to where it would be on a saturated boiler.

 

It's a very difficult question. Normally, of course, conservation "best practice" is to leave things as you found them. However, relatively few 19th century locomotives survived long enough to be preserved, and many of those were modified over the course of their lives. So, I would argue that (unless one can find the money for a lot of new build projects!) the preservation movement can't show Joe Public what 19th century railways were really like unless we backdate some of the surviving locomotives (and rolling stock!) to an earlier condition.

Thus, I would argue that you have to judge each case on its own merits, taking into account factors such as the engine's current condition (is it in "as withdrawn" state, or has it already been restored to working order?) and whether there are any other surviving examples of that type.

I should point out that I'm a historian by training (well, I have a BA in history!), so I'm considering representation from a purely historical point of view. I'm struggling to think of a good example, but say I had an engine built in the 1890s but rebuilt in the 1920s; I might argue that backdating her to original condition is a good thing because we currently have fewer representatives of locomotives in 1890s condition than we do of locomotives in 1920s condition. The fact that the 1920s modifications improved the engine's performance is irrelevant unless you actually plan to restore her to working order, in which case "conservation" questions will be of secondary importance anyway.

In the case of 251, I would argue that the modifications she received for museum display are historic in themselves, because they took place during the steam era. They provide tangible evidence of how conservation practice has changed since the railway preservation movement began, and they are of interest because of that.

To me, one of the most interesting restorations of recent years has been the ex-Seaham harbour saddletank No. 18 at Beamish. When she was first restored in the 1960s, the aim was to restore her as close to original condition as possible, as was the fashion at the time. That meant removing items such as the cab and saddletank which, though not original, were nevertheless historic and a part of the engine's history. Worse, these items were discarded rather than being retained for potential future reinstatement. This would now be regarded as bad conservation practice. With the benefit of hindsight and modern conservation thinking, we can now see that she ought to have been restored to her final form (if restored at all!).

But...though I am very reluctant to criticise the curators at Beamish, I must say that I have reservations about the decision that was subsequently made to try to reverse the 1970s modifications and restore No. 18 back to her 1930s condition, for two reasons:

Firstly, despite the problems outlined above, the 1970s restoration effectively gave us a representative of an 1870s locomotive - and railway preservation has more examples of 1930s locomotives than 1870s ones.
Secondly, not only was it impossible to reinstate the historic material lost in the 1970s, but it was also impossible to recreate it authentically. As the Beamish Transport blog acknowledges (see http://beamishtransportonline.co.uk/2012/06/no-18-some-curatorial-observations/), preservation-era modifications to the engine have forced compromises in the efforts the restore her to 1936 appearance. Thus, one could argue that we have swapped an approximation of an 1870s loco for an approximation of a 1930s one.

As I say, I am very reluctant to criticise the Beamish curators because I know No. 18 was a particularly difficult case; because I am aware of Beamish's excellent reputation; and because I know they are professionals with far more knowledge, wisdom and experience than I! Nevertheless, my gut feeling is that if I have been in their shoes, my policy would have been that, though the 1970s interventions were regrettable, what's done is done; I would have chosen to keep her (as far as possible) as restored in 1977 rather than modify her any further.

However, I will be very interested to hear what others have to say on the subject!

 

Sending this thread way off track(ter), you might want to un-rebuild this vintage machine:

Scary

Richard

 

Simon Vettel could do with one of those at the moment.

 

Sebastian's less famous brother?

 

It's his middle name.