Gents,

Thanks for your thoughts. My question was prompted by the article which suggested that W cars could be 'restored' with new equipment, wheelchair accessibility and so on. Such work could hardly be considered 'restoration' as it isn't returning a tram to a given, earlier state. My idea was that restoration and reconstruction both returned trams to the condition of a particular time period, they just differed in the amount of work done and amount of new material used.

Kym, your point about modern materials is one that I should have considered earlier. It isn't possible to get paint made to the same specs as that used a century ago, nor would it make sense to do so. Operational requirements call for different materials today, and I can't imagine that any group operating trams now would be able to (or want to) replicate everything exactly as it was, especially when these things aren't able to be seen by those who operate and ride the cars. Some compromise is called for and is fair enough.

I asked the questions because I don't have modern experience of tramway preservation and operation, and I'm interested in learning how it's done. Personally, I'd like to be well informed so I don't talk rubbish; I don't have the experience but I'd like to learn from those who do. I was also curious as to whether the questions were just about 'words', and whether it had an impact on tramway preservation today. It's easy for those not in the know to talk about things but I'm fascinated to know how it's actually done. So I thank you for your input.

Long and the short of it - what is proposed by Mr McHarg isn't 'restoration', nor is it practical or viable.

Cheers,
Matt