Re-store
Re-construction
Re-novate

There are two other "re-"s to consider, re-pair and re-plica.

Building a W2 from scratch, irrespective of the materials used, provided it appeared the same - stainless steel underframe,
fibreglass body on an aluminium frame, AC motors, would be a 'replica', again "provided it appeared the same". (Some might argue
about this!)

Taking a W2 from Preston and putting it in good order, same as it was when taken out of service, is re-pair.

And fitting track brakes, or PCC bogies and motors, and all the rest, so as to make it suitable for service today, is none of the
above, it is modernization. As someone said, it would not be a W2.

And fitting a centre low floor section to a B2 tram would make it a B3, and a very good idea. Ditto hanging a low floor section on
to the main body, articulated to the rest of an A class car.

Regards

Dudley

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt" <msa_vianney>
To: <TramsDownUnder>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 9:06 AM
Subject: [TramsDownUnder] Re: Further thoughts on restoration and reconstruction

> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>