Definitions of preservation

Dear all
this is my interpretation on what condition a steam locomotive is in when it has entered the preservation movement and has left commercial hand or working full time commercially. This is not from the dictionary but from thinking about the subject, if you think any need to be changed please drop me a message with the change and i will do it for you. I hope that this will be used to settle any arguments on what condition a locomotive is such as the City of Birmingham debate.

Preservation applies to the whole movement weather it has been restored in any way or if it is sat in a siding.

Preserved: this is when a locomotive in this case is taken from service and nothing is done to it at all as it is in the same state it was in during its working life. An example of this can be seen on some of the IOM steam railway locomotives as they have been untouched since they were last used.

Conservation: this is when only very minor work is done to an locomotive for example a static exhibits this would be a clean and polish and very small repairs to paint or decaying parts to prevent them form decaying any further. The original rocket would be an example of this and some other surviving early locomotives as no serious restoration work has been done on them.

Restoration: Now this can be split up into 3 sections as you can cosmetically restore a loco which restores its appearance to what it used to be but using new materials or one not previously on that locomotive. This is most of the national collection including the two visiting A4's and City of Birmingham despite being done by a BR works it has still be restored.
You then have restoration to working order which is most locos that came out of Barry as they have been restored to how they were with parts re made but using the original fabric of the locomotive.
There is then restoring a locomotive to a specific point in its career when it has been modified after this period such as Duchess of Hamilton and Fenchurch on the Bluebell.

Rebuild: This is ware a locomotive is significantly changed or reconstructed to its original or working form from a collection of parts not a complete locomotive, this includes the GWR railmotor and Taliesin on the FR.

Replica: The construction of a locomotive that has been scraped using no original parts of that locomotives such as the working Rocket replica.

New build: A totally new locomotive that only uses minor parts from others but uses an unused name or number such as Tornado.

Stored: Now this is where any kind of preserved locomotive is left in a state of libo either restored or not restored or waiting to be overhauled and this can happen for an infinite lenght of time until the owner wishes to restore the locomotive.

I hope this helps people when they get into debates on this section of the forum although it does apply to all rolling stock and buildings to, but once something has been restored it is no longer preserved but heritage.

many thanks
Patrick

 

surely preserved ought to be more of an umbrella term, that could be applied to your current definition of it, conservation and restoration?

Other than that seems good to me.

where would projects such as the grange project go, rebuild or new build as they are using significant parts from various other locos making use of standardization of some components?

 

Surely we should follow GWR practice and use whichever term best fits the financial needs of the organisation undertaking the work [grin]

Seems to me that preservation is probably the opposite of scrapping, and there are various things that can happen to a preserved locomotive such as conservation [your def seems spot on], restoration [process of reversing deterioration/damage caused by neglect], rebuild (in railway terms traditionally a significant change of design of all or part wouldn't you say), repair [process of reversing wear/damage caused by use], renewal [process of building a locomotive with the same identity but with substantially new parts and possibly design]. Plus of course build from new, which in GWR usage at least could involve very significant use of secondhand parts.

So a preserved loco that comes out of use and is stuffed in a headshunt to rust for umpteen years will probably need to be both restored [again!] and repaired, but one that comes out of service and is conserved under cover will just need to be repaired before it runs again.

 

The Betton grange project is a new build as the frames are new and despite the boiler being a big item it is not from a grange. The county project is a rebuild as most of its parts have been rebuilt to make a county out of them and its the same with the 2mt project on the bluebell. This is not a definite rule as to the condition of any particular locomotive its just a general meaning for a basic category as i have got a bit fed up of people using the conservation word more than it should be as it does mean something other than what they are saying.
many thanks
Patrick

 

Don't you need another (rather large) sub group - Abandoned? That is fundamentally different from preserved.

 

So what is the new Lord of the Isles loco, incorporating quite a lot of Hunslet Austerity: a rebuild (a significant change of design of all or part - I should say so!) or build from new (involving very significant use of secondhand parts…)

Tom

 

I think the rebuild / replica / new build issue is a bit more of a continuum, and to some extent depends on what the groups involved choose to say they are doing. For example, the A1 Trust I believe always made a point that they were making the next A1 in a series - which I guess is a new build. Whereas with Beachy Head, it is always described as "recreating Beachy Head", to the extent re-using the name. I suppose that counts as a replica in your classification, though I don't think many people involved would describe it as such: certainly at a level of technical complexity, there isn't much to differentiate a "replica" from a "new build". All the various Great Western things (Grange / County / Saint etc) all seem to get described as "new build" despite incorporating significant original parts, albeit from classes other than those being recreated.

How would you describe the Braithwaite and Ericcson "Novelty" loco in MoSI, which I believe contains some original parts (or, depending who you believe, North Star in the Swindon museum which likewise is said to contain some original parts)?

Tom

 

Does any of it matter?????

 

Not at all IMO.

 

This thread must qualify for the "biggest time waster award" 2014! - and there is plenty of competition on here at times.

 

It does where museums are concerned! Because, of course, the function of most museums is to conserve their collections. The NRM (for example) is quite unusual in having a remit to restore some of its rolling stock collections to working order, or to loan them out to other organisations who will do the same, on the grounds that you can't fully educate the public about their role if they don't have the opportunity to see some of them in use.

I think there needs to be a greater awareness among some enthusiasts that, whereas private owners and preservations societies are entitled to do what they like with their own property, museums have a duty to conserve - hence why it would be wrong to restore Lode Star or City of Birmingham to steam.

Patrick, I broadly agree with most of your definitions you suggest but I would suggest that the category you label "preserved" would be better described as "unrestored". In practice, to "preserve" anything in a particular condition will always require a minimum level of conservation work to prevent deterioration (an annual clean for example), unless you can arrange to have it sealed in a totally dark, dust-free, environment where temperature and relative humidity can be controlled and kept constant - which, in practice, never happens for railway rolling stock! The Isle of Man engines you cite, for example, have deteriorated considerably since they were withdrawn from service, so I would argue that they cannot really be said to have been "preserved" in as-withdrawn condition.

 

If you don't know what it is you are trying to achieve then you will probably fail to achieve it... So in that sense it matters. I agree that where you draw the line of the broad spectrum between new build and rebuild is essentially meaningless, but the conservation/restoration thing is IMHO important, and we probably also need (unfortunately) a word that covers locomotives and stock that have been restored but are not being effectively conserved and are slowly returning to Barry wreck status.

 

Don't reckon so. You can definitely add a third category at least: rusty eyesore.
I bet the majority of the great British public aren't that bothered about whether something is working or not, but they do care if one end of their village or the countryside they walk through or drive past is taken up by what looks like a scrapyard.

 

I glad most of the people who have posted are being constructive about what I have compiled and if you don't like it don't post at all as it is rude so please with draw your posts and you know who you are as they are not needed.
thanks
Patrick
yes i know im not a moderator but all the same its curtsey.

 

Hang on. Why is it rude to say you don't like it?

 

Beats me. In the meantime most of us will get on with the job of overhauling/preserving/conserving/rebuilding whatever piece of hardware we're involved with and not giving a monkey's chuff what term is the "correct" one.

 

So if the proposed re-creation of an LMS Ivatt Co-Co diesel-electric loco is to be numbered 10000 or 10001 (the two original locos) it would be a replica, but if it was to be numbered 10002, it would be a new-build!

But, to be more serious, it does no harm to have strict definitions of these terms, since they might come in useful for legal or administrative purposes, but in day to day language they'll always be somewhat interchangeable, even among railway enthusiasts.

 

Indeed - I think the differentiation between "New Build" and "Replica" is splitting hairs a bit. Tornado was always described as "recreating the next A1 in a series", so presumably is a new build, whilst Beachy Head is described as "recreating Beachy Head", so I guess is a replica. But there is little to distinguish the two projects at a level of technical complexity!

What I think is historically significant is to understand the difference between conservation, restoration and renewal. Personally, I'd use "preservation" as an umbrella term for the whole movement (after all, you can preserve skills or working practices) rather than the narrow terms as defined by Patrick. I don't think that there are any locomotives that can really be said to be "preserved" as Patrick defines it; at the very least, a loco taken straight out of traffic and into a museum will have been cleaned, parts greased, probably the boiler drained and dried etc, i.e. steps taken to conserve it.

Tom