The work done by most tram preservation groups in Australia to 'restore'
their trams probably falls more into the category of refurbishment or
overhaul than restoration. A few stretch to the reconstruction category -
at what percentage of replacement material would a refurbishment become a
reconstruction? Probably if more than 50% is replaced, or if its current
state is altered dramatically (ie saloon car back into a toastrack, or body
put on trucks and made operational, it could be classed as a reconstruction.

In some cases, authenticity can not be replicated, for example asbestos
insulation or lead paint cannot be used, which in turn can require other
changes such as different roof coverings or different electrical/heat
separations. Cloth or VIR covered wire disappears in favour of
fire-retardant PVC, that may require bigger conduits and troughing. Some
timbers are no longer available, or are radically different in their cut to
that of a century ago. Window sizes have to be altered to take safety
glass, etc. Neoprene cups have replaced leather cups in brake cylinders and
other pneumatic equipment. The list goes on.

What most groups try to do is preserve the memory of the tram as
authentically as possible, as that is what inspires the majority of the
visitors and enthusiasts.

Kym

_____

From: TramsDownUnder [mailto:TramsDownUnder]
On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Monday, 8 March 2010 3:40 PM
To: TramsDownUnder
Subject: [TramsDownUnder] Further thoughts on restoration and reconstruction

Re-reading my post about Bill McHarg and his fantasy, I can see that I may
have been a little vague about the difference between restoration and
reconstruction. I'm not worried about the arguments about what is planned or
done with old bodies to make them compliant for use today, I'm more
concerned with preservation use.

My understanding was that a the product of a completed restoration had
mostly the same makeup and material as it was before restoration commenced.
Say a W2 was bought in the 80s, straight from service. If it has the marker
lights removed, the side destination boxes restored, the Colorflek paint
removed and a 1950s colour-scheme reapplied, then it is a restoration of the
tram to its 1950s state. It is almost entirely the same tram with the same
running gear, just backdated and repainted.

My understanding also was that a tram returned to a previous state but using
a majority of new material was a reconstruction. Say a Sydney R or an
Adelaide Droppy body was acquired from a farm and returned to operation
using new running gear and equipment. It has rusted panels replaced, roof
repaired and re-canvassed, seats from elsewhere fitted and new paint, then
that is a reconstruction.

Are my definitions valid? Where does the definition of reconstructing the
tram rather than just replacing damaged or worn componentry come into it? If
the canvas is replaced on the fictional W2 mentioned above, if it is done
using the same methods as the M&MTB would have done, then how does that help
to define restoration versus reconstruction? My thoughts are summed up as
something along the lines of 'mostly rebuilt using new material to the
original design equals reconstruction, while mostly the same material as at
the beginning of work equals restoration'.

I stand by my example that Ballarat 1 is a reconstruction rather than a
restoration. It has very little of what was extant when the body was
recovered from the back yard. Yet it is built almost from scratch, using
some original hardware and using many original parts as patterns.

Is it worth trying to draw a line between what is a restoration and what is
a reconstruction? Is it a merely intellectual exercise or does it have
practical merit? Some examples can be hard to pin down, such as Adelaide 42.
Same roof, floor and ends? Did it get a Brussels truck? Maybe Adelaide 186
is a better one?

I recall an article in Trolley Wire from around 1993 which discussed some of
these issues, but I'd also be interested in thoughts from those of you who
are involved in tram restoration and reconstruction.