Re: Discussions of preservation / restoration / replication in L&RP

Russo Loco Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
> The next specific discussion that I came across,
> though unfortunately focused on diseasels, was
> "Replicas vs. The Real Thing" by Bob Yarger, in
> the May-June 1987 issue [of L&RP]:

" . . . Purist preservationists are bound to frown on replicas as 'phonies.'  But if their philosophy were followed strictly, it would eliminate the chance of ever watching C&O E8s in coal country, a set of black & red Rock Island F7s in Kansas, [a Santa Fe Warbonnet PA-1 on Cajon Pass] or a Rutland RS-3 in Vermont, as the 'real' units from those railroads are long gone. What seems important now is not a philosophical discussion about replicas vs. the real thing, but to save as many early [locomotives] and parts as we can."

I finally found the vaguely-remembered and much later counter argument in the guest editorial Are We Collecting Too Much? by John H. White, Senior Historian, National Museum of American History, Division of Transportation, Smithsonian Institution (retired) in the Sept.-Oct. 1991 issue (emphasis mine):

"The immediate answer from any red blooded railroad preservationist enthusiast is 'Hell, no. How can you ever collect too much?'  . . . However, after years of reflection, it seems that the collector's esprit de corps may actually hinder its preservation efforts because of a hasty, indiscriminate insistence on taking in everything and anything.  . . . . Do we really need another half-rotten hulk to stand out in the weather, causing the public to be unsure whether we are running a museum or a scrapyard?  . . . .  Simply put, when you have too much to take care of, you end up taking care of nothing.
    :
An even less expensive method [of getting rid of old junk and duplicates] involves salvaging the usable hardware after making a careful photo­graphic record and producing accurately measured drawings. This method is especially appropriate for items such as wooden cars [when] the timber elements are so rotten that they cannot be salvaged.  Restoration [in this case] would result in a replica in any event, so we are just hastening the process and relieving the site of another unsightly derelict."

OTOH, Dan Ranger – Manager of the C&TS at the time, wrote in the May-June 1987 issue:

"Someone has said that history is only relevant if we learn from it.  Someone else stated that America has scrapped more of its history than it has ever saved.  These thoughts can indict us or enlighten us. One would hope the latter."

In the July-August 1988 issue of L&RP there's a thoughtful 8-page article, 'Facadism: Is This Really Preservation,' also by John H. White (above) which includes the following summary of three possible approaches to preservation, restoration and/or replication:


The article describes both good and bad examples of "restoration", and in a response to a letter to the editor in a subsequent issue Mr. White makes it very clear that he favors the middle course.  I certainly tend to agree with him, especially if a relic is intended for static display.  OTOH, the fullest interpretation of something's function is best achieved by operating it if possible, which in most cases will require reinforcement or even replacement of its more fragile parts – but only after accurate drawings, photography and thorough analysis of the original, as described above, have been completed.

- El Abuelo Histœrico, Greengo y Curmudgeoño de los Locomoturas Viejos y Verdes,
aka Der Grossväterlich DünkelOlivGrünDampfKesselMantelLiebHabender



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/2017 09:09PM by Russo Loco.