Conservation (in working order) or Preservation - good V bad?

[demu1037]

Despite the title, I'm not against preservation, its just that I think we lose something by over restoring and (from a modelling/historic perspective) don't like it!
To see 33001 as a working loco in 1984 ish, minimal cosmetic attention since BR, and looking (albeit clean) like a real Q1 meant far more than its current state.

To illustrate my point I offer three pictures:
33001 in steam, October 1982



on washout about the same time



and in the NRM



The first two show a working loco, albeit a tad clean for its type, in its natural environment, the third a museum exhibit with no real presence.
Am I right or wrong?

 

[flexible_coupling]

I'll take conservation indoors, in a place that will protect it from rust-loving sea air, such that it could be brought back to life at some stage, over the sad alternative that faces a number of Australia's largest stockpiles of preservation efforts!

To take your specific question... I can understand subjects like the Q1 and Deltic (as the first two subjects that come to mind in a broadly similar boat) being treated with a careful touch. An alternation of 3 years in service, 3 years in a static environment would allow every generation to see special subjects in both settings, enhancing the novelty and appeal when they come back...

 

[Steph Dale]

I don't believe you can have items conserved in working order; for a start boilers have to be lifted at least every ten years and at that point some sort of mechanical work is usually necessary. By that logic even in 1984 the Q1 wasn't in ex-BR condition.

It's an interesting question which I was mulling over in my head after seeing the footage of Winston Churchill at the NRM. It looks stunning and the quality of the work the Mid-Hants has done is superb. But, it's meant the loss of a genuine BR condition finish. Admittedly the paint was very scruffy when I last saw her 2 years ago, but the NRM should have thought a bit about leaving the loco in open storage a decade or so ago.

It's for this sort of reason I don't think I'd ever be able to support the restoration of 'City of Birmingham' or the SECR D; a huge part of their value is in their current condition.

Steph

 

[Neil]

Here's an interesting and entertaining take on the dilemma.

Bauxite and the L&B carriage are my favourite objects at the NRM, though the Dike of Sutherland's kitchen run them close. Such faded glories are sadly few and far between, but there is a compromise to be had for any preservation group brave enough. One of my pet peeves are the locos carriages and wagons that have been shown too much love, where fresh paint and polish abound. My favoured course of action would be to treat those items of stock in the same way the real railway would have done during the period that they represent. BR standards should be neglected and careworn, big four stuff a touch less so, and the spit and polish reserved for the Victorian trinkets.

 

[AJC]

It's an interesting question Neil, if not exactly a new one - William Morris and John Ruskin were taking views on exactly the same concerns a century and more ago albeit in terms of, generally, medieval buildings. But the questions are the same: how can we do what you suggest? At what point in the life of the locomotive do we choose to represent? Taking the SE&CR D as an example, were it a working machine, why present it as a front line, express passenger machine with that order of cleanliness and polish when the work it would actually do - slow speed, stopping passenger work - are more representative of its final years. My archaeologist friends (particularly those involved in reconstruction, electronic or 'real') spend perhaps half to two-thirds of their time thinking about this and waste a lot of ink saying that 'all this is artificial' with reference to more 20th century philosophy than is really healthy for anybody.

Down here in Hampshire, there are two or three locally-owned traction engines and a roller in a state of we might call 'working grot' and they are, undoubtedly, quite attractive in that form, at least to me, but I doubt that their current, apparently unrestored condition is representative of their working condition when they formed part of someone's plant inventory. I suspect, but don't actually know that they would have been in rather smarter fettle, with boiler cladding for a start.

Here we go:

http://ccmv.aecsouthall.co.uk/p697782368/h8bf03e2#h8bf03e2

http://ccmv.aecsouthall.co.uk/p697782368/h8bf03e2#h6ec23af

The same can be said of that Q1 - railtour fettle by BR standards - and of course the problem with wagon stock in a preservation context is that, generally, the wagons are decorative. They do not fulfil the function for which they were built and are generally pristine, rotten or, if 'working', are used for essential civils or coal transporting activity and while patched up, probably aren't done so in the same way that they would have been while in traffic. Where do you start? Why do you stop?

Adam

 

[Devonbelle]

IIRC When the Q1 came back into traffic it wore it's original BR paintwork - I vividly remember seeing it on the Bluebell - with chips and scratches in the paintwork and the concertina roof cover between tender and loco, somewhat moth eaten, father was frothing with excitement at seeing it, taking him back, rather than immaculate pre grouping locos with a museum finish. Paul