1 10 7 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/2883152b31a3e3894f2b14db88f9ac94.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=YwPwWB5DRvS7JKNW1UOPbfHtYmNc67xp64gOHLZI9UVY0O6qRwxcgCCEu6l3hcPOl51sK5RWh5eH-1tp%7Er5Abb6iaPex-es3rVOrj9cDgWclXcd8nRiT3GbNHTBrd4A4OcFtt2figaJnR2bjUh7pC6ruqO4Q8pibPs16sgbcwHdiLaQOrzs%7EvIJ9XPRTlaUv8fxXz0bIs47aE3mSXBo9uqoA7xUJnjXYSNtesKfIS5rpPv1mUoEAB3U%7EUEv94D5oEOGI0AQkdzrQdz7GdmQlRX1rXZcOq68fXiMtCdHL1GDF4SKiKH-iXzsc9yirLWM1pUDnGOK1Q5TJnAM%7E4siOPg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 2076efa0b153abc32d79f744034eed61 PDF Text Text "Is it safe? - balancing conservation, operation and display of rail vehicles at the National Railway Museum" Chris Beet and Anthony Coulls Engineering & Operations Manager Chris Beet and Senior Curator of Rail Vehicle Collections, Anthony Coulls look at managing the conservation and operation of historic locomotives and rolling stock from the National Collection in the 21st century. The world and legislation move on, but our collection is rooted in time, often with objects that were built and run in the days before Health & Safety law became commonplace. The National Railway Museum has made the decision to run some of its locomotives on the main line railway, and this requires further following of safety procedures. Chris & Anthony will seek to highlight some of the ways that they have to follow current best practice from both an engineering, operation and conservation point of view to make the collection accessible to as wide an audience as possible. The title of this paper “Is it Safe”? reflects a question posed of the one time Head of Engineering Collections at the NRM, Richard Gibbon, who will be know to many of you. He was asked it one day whilst steaming up our working replica of “Rocket”, built in 1979 to the original 1829 design. His response was “of course it isn’t – it’s an 1820s design” – and this may be amusing to us here today, but said to the wrong person, might have prevented the operation of the locomotive and made the lives of those of us who work with operating historic machinery that little bit harder! I will look at the National Railway Museum’s basics of operation and then Chris will follow with specific examples from practical experience of running historic locomotives on the main line railway of today. We have a policy across the National Museum of Science & Industry which I shall touch on briefly, and is appended to this paper, which looks for the Collections Side of Selecting and Operating items from the collection. Once a vehicle has been selected, we then produce a detailed Conservation Management Plan which is worked into the practical conservation or restoration work and used as a management tool, detailing as it does both the historical work and significance of the vehicle and also how the vehicle is to be repaired, operated and documented. We use these plans for all our vehicles, and are able to justify operating unique and elderly locomotives through having worked through the rationale of a conservation survey being undertaken to ensure minimal loss of historic fabric whilst allowing safe operation in the light of current legislation. We have a hierarchy of replacement on locomotive parts – so bearings, boiler tubes and such like are consumables, whereas replacement of frames, boilers etc is much more intrusive and less likely to find favour. In some cases it is easier and more cost effective to repair than replace with new. An extreme case for the NRM has been the repair of Flying Scotsman’s boiler, where we have had a new copper firebox made and fitted in the traditional manner, rather than going down the route of having an all welded new boiler made. We �know htat the techniques to repair and maintain a copper firebox still exist, whereas repairing an all welded steel boiler of that size is an art which is still being learned. A major part of this papar though needs to consider how we are operating 19th and 20th century machinery in the 21st century. The hardware we are operating remains basically constant, but the environment has changed a lot even in the 42 years since the last steam locomotives ran on British Rail. Track has become higher in places, many lines now have overhead electric wires in place for power, platforms and stations have been rebuilt. Trains that operate on the lines have become faster. How have the heritage world and the NRM been able to cope? Every vehicle has to have a Fitness to Run examination if it is to be even towed on the main line railway. Axles must be ultrasonically tested at the very least and brake systems checked. If it is a locomotive, then it must be mechanically sound – and if a steam loco, the boiler must pass an annual inspection for insurance as a pressure vessel. Air brake receivers for any vehicle must also pass the same inspections. Some of our heritage collection is too tall to safely work under electric wires, so we have had to reduce the height by replacing items such as cab sides or chimneys with ones an inch or so lower to make them fit. This is reversible in most cases and often un-noticeable to the human eye. Interestingly, it is not always the locomotive’s chimney or dome that is the tallest part. We also do not allow operating staf to climb on locomotives whilst under electric wires. You can also see on this slide that we have introduced lower level water fillers on the locomotive tenders to prevent the need to go on top. These also fit standard fire hoses, to allow for filling from hydrants or tankers – as the steam age infrastructure for servicing steam locos is long gone. We have to adapt to modern operating procedures and carry electrickery as one of my colleagues puts it – On Train Monitoring and Recording (the railway “Black Box”) and Train Protection and Warning System – which are modern requirements that have had to be adapted to work on steam age technology, so one finds electronics that have to be designed to work in the hard physical world of the steam railway. Then one has to find the space on a team loco to put it all (see slide) and then maintain it with hot oil and steam around, water and coal dust! There is a requirement to carry a modern high intensity headlamp for visibility, along with modern data and warning signs as well! Of course our staff and volunteers have to comply with modern Health & Safety too, and at the very least carry full Personal Track Safety cards after extensive training. The actual operation of the locomotive remains in the hands of the Train Operating Company who provide a driver, fireman or secondman and a Traction Inspector. We then also have an owner’s representative on the loco to advise on any issues, faults or foibles. On a heritage railway, many of these issues do not arise, but we still must remain ahead of the game at all times �The very fact that we continue to operate heritage locomotives on the main line railway is at times on reflection, little short of marvellous… NMSI Policy and Procedures for Selecting and Operating Historic Objects from the Collections of the National Museum of Science & Industry Date Ratified: Date for Review: New or Revised Policy Written by : Distribution: New Marta Leskard, Conservation Manager Paper, electronic copies, shared Collections drive This document to be read in conjunction with associated Policies and museums’ policy drafts Related Science Museum Science Museum Collecting Policy, 10 July 2007 Documention: Science Museum, Indemnity & Insurance Management, draft policy 2007 (M. Rollo) National Museum of Science & Industry, Corporate Plan 2006 Science Museum Human Remains Policy, draft August 2005 (L. O’Sullivan) Collections Management Policy, National Museum of Science & Industry, April 2005 Conservation of objects in the care of the Science Museum, Policy statement, January 2005 (H. Newey) Increasing access to the Science Museum’s collections through live interpretation, draft policy, 19 June 2003 Version 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.2 Date 03/04/2008 27/05/2008 09/09/2008 09/04/2009 12/03/2010 18/03/2010 26/05/2010 Status Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Final Comments Revised for NMSI Added E. Bartholomew comments Added H. Ashby comments Approved NMSI CG 18/05/2010 �CONTENTS: 1. POLICY STATEMENT 2. PROCEDURE 2.1 Proposal 2.2 Selection 2.2.1 2.2.2 3. Selecting Functions for Display Risk Factors SELECTION PROCESS 3.1 3.2 Statement of Significance 3.3 Conservation Objectives 3.4 Treatment Plan 3.5 4. Curatorial, Conservation and Information Assessments Treatment Implementation OPERATION 4.1 Records APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C �1. POLICY STATEMENT The National Museum of Science and Industry, through its institutions The Science Museum, The National Railway Museum and The National Media Museum, holds one of the world’s pre-eminent collections in science, technology, industry, transport and medicine. These collections provide an unequalled record of the first and second industrial revolutions and beyond. They contain not only unique icons of international significance but also the everyday items that show the impact of science on how human lives are lived. As leaders in science and technology communication and learning, the NMSI remains committed to operating historic objects, recognising that the high levels of interest and the educational value in “working objects” make a meaningful connection between the museum’s visitors and the collections The NMSI’s selection, risk assessment and review processes (based on the tenets of the National Heritage Act, 1983) are to ensure that working objects are used in a safe, secure and sustainable way, according to best practice, now and for the future, letting the importance and condition of the object and the quality of the evidence for an earlier state guide the decision. �2. PROCEDURE The procedure for selecting an object for operation follows detailed proposal and selection criteria 2.1 Proposal At each museum. an object may be proposed for operation by staff from any department- as all are stakeholders in the museum’s vision. Additionally, proposals may come from outside groups- researchers, engineers, special interest groups, artists and filmmakers • • • • • • • • Each operation will be approved by the appropriate museum management team ( see Appendix A) after consideration of all of the following: the object’s cultural significance, which is the aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value that it has for past, present and future generations. Objects which are considered rare will not be considered for operation as use is mutually incompatible with preservation of the whole. the significance of the object’s function(s), including its alterations, repairs and modifications, if any. Any new use of an object will be compatible with original function with minimal change to fabric, respect of meanings and associations and continuation of practices which contribute to the cultural significance of that object. the object’s current condition and state of preservation, the likely impact of wear to significant parts, the need to update to current safety standards and the requirement to remove hazardous materials and/or functions. Objects which are beyond their economic life (ie: in a state of accelerated wear) will not be chosen for operation unless physical integrity is deemed insignificant in relation to significant function. the benefit to the public and to the museum, in order to inspire innovation, engage understanding, motivate learning or preserve the collections. Publicity, direct revenue generation, sponsorship attraction or special interest group gratification may be considered as supplemental reasons for proposal for operation but are not acceptable motivations on their own. the resources required for maintaining the functionality for both the short and long term. Money, time, facilities, equipment and skilled staff are required for treatments, maintenance and repair programmes. Thorough documentation including photography of all processes from decision-making to maintenance logs and handling requirements must be kept and be made accessible. Where resources cannot be committed to the long-term maintenance, repair and replacement programme, an object shall not be selected for operation. museum needs in terms of frequency of operation and number of objects operating. One operating object can be a focus for visitors but several operating objects can become a distraction or have minimal impact on public programmes restrictions of museum context (available space, exhibit design, health & safety requirements). opportunities to record through the media of film and photography the return to operation, use and maintenance in order to maintain knowledge of craft and traditional skills. �2.2 Selection A “working object” can be anything that originally had an operational function and can be either stationary or mobile. Operating a working object can mean anything from demonstrating only one particular function to running the full functional complexity. Every object in the collections with an operational function is assumed to be suitable to be a working object unless it is considered “rare”. Rare is defined as unique, an icon, of incomparable significance, nationally important or bearing important historic evidence such as developmental information, significant use, original fabric. The decision about whether an object is considered rare and therefore not a “working object” will be made by the relevant curator and endorsed by the chief Curator or relevant Head of Collections. 2.2.1 Selecting Functions for Display The selection of functions for display, educational and access purposes will be driven by an explicit evaluation of the significance of different functions. Operation will contribute to building individual and meaningful connections with science and technology through: • adding to the understanding of function, purpose and significance • showing the sensory aspects of sound, sight, feel and smell • illustrating technological, social and/or economic change • preserving significant function • preserving or rediscovering traditional skills associated with the fabrication, operation and repair of working objects • inspiring and sustaining an interest in science, industry, engineering, history and/or museums 2.2.2 Risk Factors Risk factors which must be considered are: • possible loss of historic information, including significant evidence of use, during restoration to working order • potential replacement of original parts or alterations of original design for operational or health and safety reasons and regulations or through wear caused by operation • potential difficulty in determining originality of parts or original appearance • increasingly unavailable historic materials and craft skills making accurate reproduction of parts or appearance difficult or impossible • potential deterioration of historic fabric caused by the substitution of modern materials and techniques • potential increased deterioration of historic fabric caused by uncontrollable operational environments, particularly outdoors, or through accident, inappropriate use or abuse or insufficiently trained operators • insufficient resources allocated to restore an object to working order or to completing the project as a result of underestimating needed allocation, escalating costs, project shortfall or changing priorities and long-term plans. • imbalance of resources required to maintain and demonstrate the working object and to train the operators against the return in benefit to the museum in terms of public interest or educational value. �• 3. non-refundable costs of minimising risk through loss or damage to an working object as the museum may not be able to find the resources to purchase commercial insurance (see Appendix B) SELECTION PROCESS 3.1 • • • Curatorial, Conservation and Information Assessments: The Curatorial Assessment will be the responsibility of the relevant curator, with input from the chief Curator or the relevant Head of Collections, and will define what the object is and what its function(s) were/are. It will fully detail an object’s history and provenance and will include research into similar objects to enable comparisons of rarity, condition, integrity and interpretive potential. The Conservation Assessment will be the responsibility of the relevant Conservation Manager and will focus on the material(s) of the object and its condition and functionality. It will include a description of the physical fabric and function(s), analysis of samples as required, identification of alterations and an appraisal of the wear level(s). It will outline the resource implications for treatment, maintenance, environment, security, health & safety regulations, access, exhibition, storage, handling and object movement, with input from relevant museum departments (see Appendix A). The Information Assessment will be the responsibility of the Registrar and will assess the issues of indemnity and insurance and the financial and legal responsibilities of the museum. 3.2. Statement of Significance A statement of significance, drawn from the curatorial, conservation and information assessments, will give a reasoned clear summary describing the values, meaning and importance of the object. It will include: • • • cultural significance- context, history and uses significant values- aesthetic, historic, scientific, social, spiritual significant alterations, modifications and repairs It will be the responsibility of the relevant curator to produce the statement which will be a formal document retained as part of the historic record of the object, filed in a format designated by Collections Documentation. 3.3 Conservation Objectives The conservation objectives, based on the conservation assessment, will outline all aspects of the object’s care and use, so that treatment and operation does not compromise the significance of the object • The level of operation acceptable for the object’s preservation will be established: o no operation �o o o o o mothball, shutdown or freeze minimal operation- for maintenance purposes only under tightly controlled conditions low levels of operation for occasional demonstration under controlled conditions medium levels of operation for infrequent demonstration under medium controls high levels of operation for regular demonstration • The appearance objectives appropriate for the object will be defined. • The proposed future use will be determined: o permanent display, including demonstration on or off-site, visitor access or static exhibit o long-term loan for operation or demonstration o temporary display, including demonstration, visitor access or static exhibit o storage The conservation objectives will be an itemised Conservation Management Plan produced by the relevant Conservation manager/ Conservator and will be used to inform the treatment plan. 3.4 Treatment Plan The treatment plan will establish all potential options to satisfy the conservation objectives including: • • • • • • alterations required for compliance with regulations, including removal of hazardous materials preservation of internal components safety and stability of the object works to achieve appearance replacement of like with like or with modern materials, and conservation, retention or disposal of original components depending on an assessment of their significance use of traditional skills or modern methods for repairs and replacement manufacture The treatment plan will determine the resources required for all the treatment options: • • • • • • • skills equipment materials space continued availability and commitment of resources projected maintenance including tasks, schedules, costs, skills and supplies future sources of suppliers The treatment plan will identify the options for operation and display and/or storage with details of space, resources and logistics included for each option. The final stage of the treatment plan will be to select the approach to be implemented after review of the options. This review will be undertaken by the initiator of the proposed project, the relevant curator, the relevant Conservation manager and the Registrar. Resource considerations, both for achieving and sustaining the decision, will be a priority. �The Treatment Plan will be included in the Conservation Activity in MMXG. The final decision will be endorsed by the appropriate museum executive managers (Appendix A) and the justifications for the decision will be a formal document retained as part of the historic record of the object. 3.5 Treatment Implementation The treatment implementation will include both the treatments as specified by the Treatment Plan and the production of an Operating and Handling Guideline and Inspection Record and Maintenance Plan. The Operating and Handling Guideline will include: • • • • • • parameters and limits of operation operation methods authorised operators and required training operation logbook template moving and handling instructions identified hazards The Inspection Record and Maintenance Plan will include: • • • • • inspection plan and schedule maintenance plan and schedule specified fuels and lubricants the treatment plan decision to replace like with like or with modern alternatives inspection record and maintenance record templates �4. OPERATION The Operational Logbook, produced as part of the Operating and Handling Guideline, and the Inspection and Maintenance records, based on the Inspection Record and Maintenance Plan, are to be rigorously kept and updated throughout the object’s working life and the documents retained as part of its historic and technical record. Resources, allocated as determined in the treatment planning, will ensure that the Inspection Record and Maintenance Plan can be carried out as specified. Where adequate resources cease to be available for ongoing maintenance, necessary repairs or legislated modifications, a review of the operational plan will be held. Periodic reviews will also be undertaken to determine whether an object should continue to be operated, whether the operation should or must, by reason of changing regulations or legislation, be modified or whether the object is no longer suitable for operation. A project manager or project owner will be given the responsibility for the programme for continued operation of the historic object and will conduct the reviews consulting with all relevant stakeholders, The programme and methodology for operating an object will not be modified or altered without review. 4.1 Records Treatment and operating records will be kept in these formats: • • • • Initial and on-going object treatment in the Conservation Activity in MMXG Up-to-date maintenance record in the Working Object Database, Conservation Server which can then be linked to MIMSY as a separate MS Excel file. This file can be retrieved and edited inside MIMSY or independently as a common MS Excel file. Maintenance history in the hard-copy Logbook held in the object’s green file. Where there is a statutory requirement for a specific format of record this will be adopted as the standard for NMSI record keeping (for instance a Rail Vehicle Maintenance & Operation Policy) �APPENDIX A Selection Management Teams: The Science Museum • Science Museum Policy and Operations Committee: Chief Curator Head of Conservation & Collections Care NMSI Head of Corporate & Collections Information Head of Library & Archives Security Manager The Conservation Assessment will be the responsibility of the relevant Conservation Manager, with input from Logistics, Security and the Collections Hazards Management Group. The National Railway Museum Collections Development Group: Head of Knowledge & Collections Senior Curator Rail Vehicle Collections Engineering & Rail Operations Manager Registrar Curator of Railways Curator, Archive & Library Collections Learning Manager Professor of Railway Studies • The Conservation Assessment will be the responsibility of the Conservator and/or the Engineering & Rail Operations Manager with input from the Senior Curator, Rail Vehicles Collections; Head of Knowledge & Collections; Collections Development Group. The National Media Museum Collections Group Head of Collections & Knowledge Conservator Collections Manager Curator of Photographs (x2) Curator of Photographic Technology Curator of Cinematography Curator of New Media Curator of Television • The Conservation Assessment will be the responsibility of the Conservator with input from the Collections Manager, relevant subject Curator, Head of Collections & Knowledge and the Collections Hazards Management Group. �APPENDIX B The factors which must be considered before proposing to operate an object on loan in: Collections Registration must be consulted before any object on loan in is considered for operation. The owner’s approval will have to be sought and obtained in writing. In the case of some historic loans, it may prove difficult or impossible to identify a current owner. The Government Indemnity Scheme does not cover loss or damage arising while objects on loan are driven, piloted, flown, sailed, ridden, operated and so on unless the Secretary of State has given specific written approval permitting indemnity to apply while a borrowed object is in motion or exhibited as a working display or while it has to be set in motion in order to maintain it in running order. Written approval must be sought from the Secretary of State before the object is operated but the Government Indemnity Scheme does not cover loss or damage arising or flowing from normal wear and tear. Resources must be allocated from a pre-determined budget in order to care for a borrowed object during preparation for/and operation by purchasing commercial insurance. Commercial insurance may only cover the asset value of the object in the event of loss or damage and not the losses due to repair, restoration or operation. �APPENDIX C Research Documentation and Reference Material Bailey M and Glithero J, ‘Learning through Conservation: The Braddyll Locomotive Project’ in Proceedings of the Industrial Collections Care and Conservation Conference (United Kingdom Institute for Conservation, Cardiff, 1997). Bailey M and Glithero J, The Engineering and History of Rocket (National Railway Museum, 2000). Bailey M and Glithero J, ‘Learning through Restoration: the Samson Locomotive Project’ in Early Railways (London, 2001). Baird, David M., “Restoration in Transportation Museums”, Preservation and Conservation, Yearbook of the International Association of Transport Museums, Volume 7, Gdansk 1980, pp.78-85 Barr, Joanna, “The Conservation of Working Objects: Development of a Conservation Management Tool”, Artlab Australia 2006 Bracegirdle, Robert, “Preservation of Public Service Transport Vehicles. The Problems of Keeping Vintage Vehicles in Running Order”, Yearbook of the International Association of Transport Museums, Volume 13/14, 1986-1987, pp.55-72 Brodie, Francis E., “Clocks and Watches, A Re-Appraisal?, Restoration: Is It Acceptable?, British Museum Occasional Paper 99, ed. A. Oddy, 1994, pp. 27-32 Child, Robert, “Putting Things in Context: The Ethics of Working Collections”, Restoration: Is It Acceptable?, British Museum Occasional Paper 99, ed. A. Oddy, 1994, pp. 139-143 Coulls, Anthony, “Conservation or Restoration? there’s room for both!”, www.oldglory.co.uk, October 2002 Crotty, David, “Aeroplane or Artefact? Restoration and Conservation of Aircraft”, hands ON hands OFF, Scienceworks, pp.16-19 Deck, Clara, “Conservation of Big Stuff at The Henry Ford: past, present and future”, The Henry Ford Museum, BigStuff unpublished proceedings, 2004 (available BigStuff website) Gibbon, R., “Controlled Operation or Wrecking? The Use of Objects from the National Railway Museum’s Collections”, Industrial Collections, proceedings of the conference 911April, 1997, pp.17-25 Leskard, Marta, “Fair Use: National Museum of Science & Technology”, International Institute for Conservation- Canadian Group unpublished proceedings, 15-18 May, 1987 McManus, Edward, “A Restoration Philosophy: A Conservation Position Paper” National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, 1990 Mann, Peter Robert., “Working Exhibits and the Destruction of Evidence in the Science Museum”, The International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, 1989, pp. 369387 �Mann, Peter Robert, The Restoration of Vehicles for Use in Research, Exhibition and Demonstrattion”, Restoration: Is It Acceptable?, British Museum Occasional Paper 99, ed. A. Oddy, 1994, pp.131-138 Mikesh, Robert C., “Aircraft Preservation”, Preservation and Conservation, Yearbook of the International Association of Transport Museums, Volume 7, Gdansk 1980, pp.49-65 Mitchell, Gillian, “Application of the Burra Charter to large technology objects: a freelance conservator’s experiences”, BigStuff unpublished proceedings, 2004 (available BigStuff website) Moncrieff, Anne, “Conservation of Industrial Collections”, unpublished proceedings of Standard Threads, International Institute for Conservation- Canadian Group Workshop, 1992 Newey, Hazel, “Conserving Scientific and Industrial Heritage: A Pragmatic Approach”, Industrial Collections, proceedings of the conference 9-11 April, 1997, pp. 159-165 Newey, Hazel and Meehan, Peter, “The Conservation of an 1895 Panhard et Levassor and a Prototype Austin seven Motorcar: New Approaches to the Preservation of Vehicles” The Conservator, Number 23, 1999, pp. 11-21 Rees, Jim, The Steam Locomotive as an Historic Building, unpublished paper delivered at Scottish Railway Collections Conference, Falkirk 2006 Rolland-Villemot, B. & Forrieres, C., “The Different Contributors and Their Role in the Conservation, Care and Maintenance of Industrial Collections”, Industrial Collections, proceedings of the conference 9-11 April, 1997, pp. 51-58 Thurrowgood, D. & Hallam, D., “Preserving significance: Why the journey matterd more than the car”, National Museum of Australia, BigStuff unpublished proceedings, 2004 (available BigStuff website) Wain, Alison, “Large technology projects- success and sustainability”, Australian War memorial, BigStuff07 unpublished proceedings, 2007, pp.12-15 Wain, Alison, “A well-planned operation”, Australian War Memorial, BigStuff unpublished proceedings, 2004 (available BigStuff website) Ware, Michael E. “Restoration of Motor Cars”, Preservation and Conservation, Yearbook of the International Association of Transport Museums, Volume 7, Gdansk 1980, pp.21-34 Weston, Margaret, “Restoration”, Preservation and Conservation, Yearbook of the International Association of Transport Museums, Volume 7, Gdansk 1980, pp.9-20 White, John, “Conservation and large technological aretfacts: a curatorial perspective”, Australian War Memorial, BigStuff unpublished proceedings, 2004 (available BigStuff website) The Burra Charter: The Australian ICOMOS Charter for places of cultural significance, 1999 “Preservation Policy”, The Henry Ford Museum & Greenfield Village Policy & Procedure Memorandum No. 25a, 3/2001 (available CoOL website) � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Big Stuff 2010 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010 Article An article in a journal or periodical Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Is it safe? - balancing conservation, operation and display of rail vehicles at the National Railway Museum Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Chris Beet and Anthony Coulls Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010 adaptation change locomotive maintenance modern context Operating Objects operation policy railway risk assessment safety significance standards training trains https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/72f322be359eb0726cb34c411f5904c7.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=aGZ50qk1b3LoJ-TJDXO9PNGamvmlr2gDuSc1nQIYaF3ngw8Da7P2ijbu-oyoqrpJRNPkyNZGaHXbh4R5YAo24YwgVVxOB-xTwFuDYOyUKAVYu%7E2BlynWZzM0fLcRW2s8%7ElubUSO8RnTTLcrLSBIcGUPzOk87m5xsPNnHfl2yiWFvLuWm8-N1meyssmX7mPxlkx%7EnEupWN5W-2Uv%7E2Xr3UPTvKZDxtHR6GxNvXup64cQmXLWaTdvMLCscztYYWcIiUYfQ0VdwzF2%7EkVS-50aUeF45X92hSlYOrqCEkzl8f4SBk2FpZtdcRSBlde-sjzaGq7SIoo7Gq2KZIAw-lQvNaA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM e303cc0a862152d0102624da06a467a8 PDF Text Text �Significance, risk and the maintenance of Engineering and Industrial Objects – a continuing discussion. �David Hallam, Ainslie Greiner, Michiel Brunott National Museum of Australia �Object or Artifact ��NMA consequences assessment NMA Functional objects Planning Tool �Risk? Per second or per 100 years �Approach Our aim should be to find the rate limiting steps for minimising deterioration while maximising use and preservation. As with other cultural items the conservation and maintenance of functional objects should acknowledge engineering culture, it’s values and aspirations. �What's “best” for the object? • • • • • Non Functional Maintained Static Functional?– Storage/exhibition and limited use? �Operation Without planning or non use without thought are both maximising the risk of loss What happens in original oil and hydraulic systems over 100 years? We remove chlorides from maritime objects why not replace fluids with inhibitors? �A Study of Functional Fluids in Static vehicles at Coventry Transport Museum In total we sampled • 30 Brake and Clutch fluids samples • 31 Coolant samples • 11 Engine oil samples • 4 Power-steering oil samples • 3 Automatic Transmission oil samples • 6 Gearbox oil samples • 2 Differential oil samples • 2 Stale fuel samples -11- Figure 2 collected samples Total of 89 samples �Cooling System Corrosion �Bentley Fig 11 -exhaust valve open Fig 13 Corrosion on bore liner closed valves Fig 12 corrosion around closed valve Fig 14 oxidation lines on bore wall open valves �Bentley 1924 Cylinder N°1 T.B.C Cylinder N°2 B.D.C piston Cylinder N°2 scoring on opposite plug Valves crown thrust side Cylinder No 2Bore & Corrosion valve N°2 Exhaust valve open scoring and corrosion Cylinder closed Bentley 1924 Fluid: Engine oil (probably st/30) Last driven: June 1980 Photographs: Michiel Brunott Exhaust ports Photographs: copyright Coventry Transport Museum �• Significance is a difficult term to define in a museum context. What makes something worthy of preservation for the greater good of humanity? See http://significance.collectionscouncil.com. au • Significance and Value are interchangeable words • In Australia we use Significance particularly “significance 2” �Risk Rare Occasional Continuous Mild Fuel Brake lockup contamination Significant Bird dropping Rubber /plastic Storage rash while on fatigue exterior display A crash Debris build Corrosion up Catastrophic Wear �• Accept • Avoid • Reduce �NMA consequences assessment l Excel spread sheet that allows you to look at risk significance and the consequences in a numeric manner. �How soon? (rate, or probability, of damage) Risks that occur as distinct events Risks that accumulate gradually 3 Occurs about once every year Damage occurs in about 1 year 2 Occurs about once in 10 years Damage occurs in about 10 years 1 Occurs about once in 100 years Damage occurs in about 100 years 0 Occurs about once in 1000 years Damage occurs in about 1000 years 3 2 1 0 How much damage to each affected system? (proportional loss of value) Total or almost total loss of system (100%) Significant but limited damage to each system (10%) Moderate or reversible damage to each system (1%) Just observable damage to the system (0.1%) 3 2 1 0 How much of the system is affected? (fraction of collection at risk) All or most of the system (100%) A large fraction of the system (10%) A small fraction of the system (1%) One component of a system (0.1% or less) 3 2 1 0 How important are the affected systems? (value of artefacts at risk) Much higher than average significance (100 times the average value) Higher than average significance (10 times the average value) Average significance for this collection Lower than average value for this collection (1/10 the average value) �What aspects are important Top Fuel Drag racer basic template unmaintained storage risk of damage or failure How How How much of importa much the nt are How damage system the soon? to each is affected affected affected systems system? ? ? Bodywork and interior Engine and Transmission Brake and hydrologic System Electrical System Cooling System Chassis, suspension and Wheels 3 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 Functional Significance 3 8 12 12 8 11 11 consequences possible 72 62 Primary criteria (significance 2) Historic significance Artistic or aesthetic significance Scientific or research significance Social or spiritual significance 2 2 1 2 Plus 3 2 3 Total risk Artefact or Object? 3 �0 Prototype Bean 1 Maintained storage Unmaintained storage 5 Maintained storage Unmaintained storage 3 Maintained storage Unmaintained storage 2 Maintained storage Unmaintained storage Maintained storage Unmaintained storage 40 Maintained storage Unmaintained storage consequences 70 60 50 6 4 30 20 consequences 10 Wolsley MenziesABC Van Drag racer Top Fuel �Storage and limited use The basic approach is that objects spend most time in storage/display. They have limited but periodic use and maintenance. Frequency depends on -materials basedconservation requirements and public programs demand. �Maintenance • Typical maintenance will entail. • Running the object to operating temperature for 30 minutes • Changing fluids –filling tires with nitrogen • Adjusting and tuning • Monitoring • Cycling all systems. �NMA Functional objects Planning Tool • We are trying to improve the development of the planning tool used by the NMA • Our current model is based on Johanna Barr’s work mixed with our risk and significance based approach • This is a project in development! �The Tool • Planning • Implementation • Feedback �Planning • • • • • • • • • Curatorial and Conservation assessment Engineering assessment Statement of Significance Risks evaluation Curatorial Objectives Conservation Objectives Treatment Plan – collaborative Maintenance Plan Usage Plan �Implementation • • • • • • Research and materials selection Treatment Implementation Documentation Training Plan Maintenance Implementation Monitoring required �Monitoring and feedback • • • • Monitoring Reporting Feedback – to implementation Publication - feedback to community �Maintenance - Monitoring • Just noticeable Wear • Monitoring ensures this is happening • Preservation systems like mothballing which do not allow monitoring and retreatment are to be avoided �Monitoring • • • • • XRF pH Conductivity Smell Taste ��Methods and Materials Choice P n it S e le e r e h ls y Mdu ei m • Risks of deterioration P P O2 • Choice – approach, planning and Csr G at ld materials, skillsolehiTXO er V c s le • Application 1 0B T 6 SK • Monitoring U c ae no t d s e te l • Examples500-SN fluids, PSE Inhibitors, Brake O Oils, coolants �Fig 19 seized slave cylinder Fig 22 oxidized wheel piston Fig 20 half removed piston Fig 21 slave cylinder bore Fig 23 pitting on master cylinder piston �Fig 29, Green solid on edge of aluminium strip and screw Figure 1: An Assortment of brake fluids to be tested for suitability in a museum environment. �PROPERTY DOT 3 DOT 4 DOT 5 DOT 5.1 Dry Boil Point (ERBP) 205°C 230°C 260°C 260°C Wet Boil Point (Wet ERBP) 140°C 155°C 180°C 180°C Chemical Composition Glycol Glycol Silicone Glycol Viscosity (-40°C) mm2/s max 1500 1800 900 900 Table 1: Requirements for brake fluid classification according to DOT standards. NOTE ERBP = Equilibrium Reflux Boiling Point. Figure 6: Elevated temperature experimental setup �Figure 10: Graph showing relationship between corrosion rate and brake fluid concentration covering the entire range from pure water to pure brake fluid. Results obtained via the tafel approach with mild steel electrode. Figure 7: Experimental setup for Tafel approach. Figu re 12: Com paris on of corr osio n prot ectio n offer ed by vario us fluid s with steel elect rode . ��Prototype Holden No.1 �Figure 2. Comparison of Holden Prototype No.1 engine oil vs standard after controlled maintenance run for 100km at Oran Park race track Sydney NSW. Note the Fe and Mo residues from a previous engine rebuild using MoS2 grease in the rebuild process. ��1926 Bean car after 10 years display Oil pump pre Screen Conrod locknut. Web of crankshaft Note lack of carbon and Note lack of sludge or Note oil film and cleanness corrosion. carbon build-up of oil Cylinder wall through Oil dripping off bottom end Crankshaft and crank web spark plug hole Note how clean oil is Note old stain but no red rust Crown wheel in Crankcase Water Jacket Cylinder head Water differential Note deposits but no red Jacket rust Note start of failure brown globules are present in small numbers Bean 1926 Fluid: Penrite Shelsley Medium �XRF Comparison of oil after 10 years maintained display 9000 8000 7000 Oil from Bean after 10 years display Standard Base Oil Counts 6000 5000 4000 Zn 3000 Slight variation 2000 Ca 1000 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 KeV Figure 5. Comparison of Bean car engine oil after 10 years’ display and basic periodic maintenance against a current new standard. The “slight variation” is due to bromine that was used as a lead scavenger in the leaded petrol this car ran on in the 1950’s. ��Foundation HAM (Historical Army Material) contracted by the Swiss Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport, is responsible for the conservation, restoration and maintenance of the historical wheeled and tracked vehicle collection of the Swiss military. The collection contains over 700 vehicles (of which about 600 have an engine) and is composed of: •Horse carriages •Cycles •Motorcycles •Jeeps •Trucks •Tanks •Trailers •Aggregates �The foundation is currently carrying out a feasibility study to determine whether it is possible to carry out a maintenance scheme on such a big number of vehicles. This is the protocol as it is being carried out: •Two vehicles are chosen •Fluid levels and brakes are checked and vehicles inspected for any obvious problems •Vehicles are taken to the workshop for another more detailed inspection •The vehicles are driven for exactly 35km over a set out route with two stops for intermediary checks Back at the workshop •The ridden mileage is entered in the logbook of the vehicle •A condition report is established •Afterwards vehicles are put back on their initial place �Conclusions .We have outlined a developing approach to the conservation, maintenance and use of our working collection that incorporates assessment of significance and risk. We have developed a consequence assessment which we believe will be useful in assessing storage, exhibition and use of functional objects. �Conclusions • We have highlighted the importance of analytical research and the gathering of statistical data in developing a flexible maintenance program for each functional object. • We will continue to develop and consolidate these approachs in collaboration with others Nationally and Internationally �Acknowledgements Ursula Satler, Chris Hedditch, Megan Absolon, Lachlan Badger, Andreas Kreil. • David Thurrowgood, Joanna Barr, Ian MacLoad, John Ashton • Colin Ogilvie, Ian Stewart, Eric Archer • Dudley Creagh (UC), ANU RSC, Adrian Lowe, Engineering ANU. �Questions �Can t he AWM use an object from t he collect ion? What is t he significance of t he object ? 1995 How have we progressed? What about t he object is import ant and must be preserved? Import ant Hist oric Object T ype example Reproduct ion not t o be used Can be used Maint enance Monit oring Maint enance What is it 's current st at e? Monit oring What Rat e of degradat ion can be accept ed? Feed-back What is t he risk of use? What is t he cost of use vs st orage? How can we cont rol t he degridat ion? Safet y Use and Work Wear Speed and locat ion T raining and supervision Observat ion and compasion Mileage Maint enance Document at ion Monit oring Feed-back from monit oring condit ion � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Big Stuff 2010 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010 Article An article in a journal or periodical Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Significance, risk and the maintenance of Engineering and Industrial Objects: a Continuing Conversation Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource David Hallam,, Ainslie Greiner and Michiel Brunott Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010 brake coolant cooling system electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) fluid functional large technology heritage oil Operating Objects operation pH planning risk assessment significance vapour phase corrosion inhibitors (VPI, VCI, VPCI) x-ray fluorescence (XRF) https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/dcd6aca3df076586dd99966d0fe15548.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=pZkGNNXqldN99qOXK2Yn3%7E4pzjQidCnteuze0ExwyN40lCN8h-RJH1EeIyqYreOnO05D3s3GKMqkRhJ9GLTp9zuoNdcY0OaPu0omONhDRPTAgk12qCiHrE82PKa-JuEzU8hdg7vhUiFdJFz5iBWir0ljzN%7ESr6Qob8BcukiWNg980t%7EQCcU-tRdL%7EULei0SjffMhkpnoxbxzZpbVwhadlgMR1ntOzc8OoWnf4Ee%7EUDH9oE5yKSIgX7N3AxV4QhkeAWEz%7EPruJOIm-c5U1IJp9E4wtahaR7Ot6RjX-lu2SXK3h1OpVc74nkWCSBkQaorKkeLfpK9sPIvlM2%7EIUGYQaw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 74c7b5e0c5610c3f1bbb1fea2cc77a8f PDF Text Text A conservation management tool for functional objects Joanna Romanos (Artlab Australia) with Allison Russell (National Motor Museum of Australia) �Conservation Management Tool for Functional Objects PRELIMINARIES PLANNING ASSESSMENT OF MUSEUM READINESS IMPLEMENTATION �PRELIMINARIES PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION Curatorial Assessment STEP ONE WHAT IS IT? Physical Assessment STEP TWO SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT STEP THREE CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES STEP FOUR TREATMENT PLAN Museum Assessment �PRELIMINARIES STEP ONE PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION WHAT IS IT? STEP TWO SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT STEP THREE CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES STEP FOUR Level of Operation TREATMENT PLAN Appearance Objective Use/application in the museum �PRELIMINARIES STEP FIVE PLANNING TREATMENT IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION Treatment Exhibition / storage development Operation guidelines STEP SIX LIFECYCLE PRESERVATION PLAN Handling guidelines Inspection and maintenance plan �Step 1: Assessment of museum readiness • • • • • • Aims of the museum Existing policies Impacts on museum environment Resources for ongoing maintenance Location for work Location for operation �Step 2: Curatorial, physical and resource assessment • Curatorial assessment • Physical assessment • Resources assessment �Curatorial Assessment • Object description • History and provenance of the object • Research similar objects �Physical assessment • • • • Object description Condition of the fabric Identification of alterations Conditions of functions �Resource assessment • Resources available to commence and continue • Exhibition/storage restrictions • Space required for treatment • Movement requirements • Museum use • Space required for operation �Step 3: Significance assessment Significance is: The aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value that an object, collection or place has for past, present and future generations. It refers not just to the physical fabric or appearance of an object. Rather, it incorporates all of the elements that contribute to an object’s meaning, including its context, history and uses. (Significance, 2001, Collections Council of Australia) �Step 4: Conservation Objectives • Function • Form • Use �Levels of operation 1. No operation 2. Minimal operation and tight controls 3. Low levels of operation and considerable controls 4. Medium levels of operation and medium control 5. High levels of operation and limited controls �Determining operation Risk management matrix �Application of risk management matrix Function Analysis of risk Identify the function What are the risks to personnel Consequence and the object Likelihood Risk level Fly the plane Object: crash = loss of object Personnel: crash = death or serious injury Moderate HIGH Operate the propeller Object: mechanical failure = loss Moderate of parts (not original to object) Moderate SIGNIFICANT Personnel: injury from starting the propeller Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM Personnel: walking into the propeller Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM Catastrophic �Using the results to determine operation Risk rating Minimum operation threshold Maximum operation threshold HIGH Level 1 – no operation Level 2 – Minimal operation SIGNIFICANT Level 2 – Minimal operation Level 3 – Low levels of operation MEDIUM Level 3 – Low levels of operation Level 4 – Medium levels of operation LOW Level 4 – Medium levels of operation Level 5 – High levels of operation �Determining operation: Barclay’s model • Rarity • Fragility • State Five star system in each �Rarity Unique ***** Rare **** Historic *** Common ** Replaceable * �Fragility Highest ***** High **** Medium *** Low ** Safest * �State Perfect ***** Original **** Used *** Altered ** Transformed * �Application of Barclay’s model to determine levels of operation 15 stars Level 1 – No operation 12-14 stars Level 2 – Minimal operation 9-11 stars Level 3 – Low levels of operation 5-8 stars Level 4 – medium levels of operation 3-4 stars Level 5 – high levels of operation �Conservation objectives • Appearance • Proposed use/interpretation �Step 5: Treatment Plan Treatment of the function – establishing the level of operation to be achieved. • Identification of modifications required for legal operation • Assessment of the viability and worthiness of operation �Resource assessment • • • • Budget Skills Materials and equipment Space �Step 6: Treatment implementation • Treatment of functional components and external surfaces • Development of display, storage and interpretation systems �Step 7: Lifecycle preservation plan • Operational guidelines • Handling guidelines • Inspection and maintenance plan �Operational guidelines Level of operation Risk assessment for operation Safe operating procedure Authorised operators and operator competencies • Schedule for operation • Operating log • • • • �Handling guidelines • Risk assessment for handling • Safe handling procedure �Inspection and maintenance plan • Inspection plan and schedule • Maintenance plan and schedule • Templates for record keeping �Applying the tool at the National Motor Museum of Australia �Case studies – the Favourite Motorcycle �The Favourite Motorcycle �The Talbot Overlander �The Talbot Overlander �The Talbot Overlander �Transcontinental BMW �Transcontinental BMW �A conservation management tool for functional objects Joanna Romanos (Artlab Australia) Allison Russell (National Motor Museum) � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Big Stuff 2010 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010 Article An article in a journal or periodical Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A conservation management tool for functional objects Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Joanna Romanos and Allison Russell Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010 conservation large technology heritage maintenance Operating Objects operation planning significance https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/36fe620bcf2cc8508f7d65a3c136d646.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=acJB1gZXRLxPG0OeKsY6GyRvMr6dYjFksmhI1YhGJ5wA3UHeuDXvkilYxAQZQjZA4g-ZWuaNJxoRU%7EWb25leDN871WHVmO5Ur9f7allIV3Yt1LVOljgzdnoMQULNq635uLWlXCtU6ify14inCuPpDES2VN1%7Ecg8bE1UlunGCH-JhkNWEJsTPvOZDZDceV3S9%7E0wT2ZqS0R9GvwZ71nZ61IRBzlgXglVab4-4IhLWd4XPPMqZ%7E%7EYrGybqDE1Vzuu57Aqol-Fia2iqZsZ%7E0JWXKmgoOUQJSeRLyWg0-HzxpO3Er1GmEKQZPh9gOROQJUY1Xd0gLIjWn-rwaPoiQ7Uvow__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 7e1f80670fddb720e56772a07d4b1b1a PDF Text Text Preserving significance: Why the journey mattered more than the car D.Thurrowgood & D. Hallam National Museum of Australia Abstract The conservation of technological objects in social history museums requires a modified approach to conventional static conservation or traditional restoration projects. Objects in these museums are being preserved more for the story they embody than for the technology they represent. Leading up to the opening of the National Museum of Australia (NMA), conservation was undertaken on one of its most valued objects, the Francis Birtles Bean car. The car became internationally famous in the 1920s for the journeys it undertook, including one from London to Melbourne. The NMA takes into account an object’s function as much as its form when undertaking conservation projects. Finding a balance between an object’s preservation and the uses a museum seeks to put it to can be especially challenging when treating functional technology. This paper will discuss some of the ethical and practical approaches to conserving technology at the NMA using as a principal example the Bean conservation project. This paper is designed to be read in conjunction with the other material being presented by the NMA at this conference. It will primarily cover ethical issues of preserving story, while our other work will cover practical applications. Introduction Preserving collection items in a museum like the National Museum of Australia (NMA), where an object’s social history story is given at least as much value as the physical form of the object itself, means developing conservation techniques that preserve significance. Significance is a difficult term to define in a museum context. What makes something worthy of preservation for the greater good of humanity? What about it warrants the expenditure of storage and conservation resources that attempt to prolong its presence as a community resource? Defining significance, the reason why an object is being kept in the collection, has pivotal importance to designing a conservation plan for an object’s ongoing care. This will primarily be a philosophical discussion. It will cover amongst other topics, why we at the NMA are proud of the oil leaks in our vehicles, how functionality relates to significance, and the value of conserving function. Butterflies pinned out in museum glass cases make a dramatic statement about the variety of nature, but butterflies in the ever popular zoo butterfly houses give a direct 1 �experience of these gentle creatures. Many of the world museums display as “industrial sculpture” the world’s most impressive testaments to human ingenuity. Like butterflies in glass cases they lose their context. The fact that machines are designed to work is pivotal to their significance. Balancing physical preservation objectives against preserving meaning is becoming increasingly central to designing effective conservation plans for technological objects. In a world where the museum public is increasingly hostile to what they perceive as dead collections “rotting” in the stores, there is pressure for conservators to adapt their treatments so that the public feel that their collections are being preserved in ways which fulfil expectations. This means finding a healthy balance between the nostalgic desire to see something operate the way it did when it was new, and the museum appreciation that we preserve collections in perpetuity for the benefit of humanity. Conservators have worked hard over the decades to promote an understanding of the value of original surfaces, the importance of presenting the uninterpreted original object (warts and all) for the public to draw conclusions from, of the need to limit deterioration rates so that historical objects are not “consumed” by the display imperative of a single generation. The problem with restoration is that human beings, by their nature, have a tendency to seek to improve on the technology that is in front of them. A technology restorer often cannot help but make “improvements” based on modern technology and thinking. The problem in museums is that this tampers with historical integrity and meaning. The world would be outraged if a publisher printing a Shakespeare play decided to change a few lines here and there because they thought it sounded better. The publisher would be ridiculed for daring to impose their own personal judgement onto one of history’s great legacies. Why is it that when masterpieces of human technological history are “restored” there is often but a whimpering observation when new parts or technologies are introduced as if they were integral with the original? Why is it that we are accepting when a restorer says “This car won Le Mans …. During the restoration we had to put on a new body, put on hydraulic brakes and replace the pistons with aluminium”, that we are prepared to accept the restored car as the one which completed this historic achievement? In museums, making an interpretation of humanity’s great technological achievements is equivalent to editing Shakespeare because we think it sounds better. Museums should seek to preserve the integrity of our technological history with as much vigour as they defend great works of art and literature. We are relatively early in the history of post industrial revolution technological objects. Technology has moved so rapidly that there is a certain familiarity with these objects. They do not yet have that certain aura that is associated with a Renaissance painting or 1000-year-old jewellery. Its development has changed human history in quantum leaps, but because it is not ancient, not yet sacred, many amateurs, and even professionals, feel they have licence to treat these objects on an personal possession basis. Perhaps this is the natural process of attrition, one through which we whittle down to those most significant objects that will survive the passage of time. But there is a risk in our enthusiasm to preserve for posterity. Harrison’s marine timekeepers and the Wright Brothers’ flyer, pivotal technological developments, have both undergone major restorations in the last century. We pass them on through time as partial interpretations rather than as master works of history. Their survival today is perhaps because of these restorations, but it has come at the cost of portions of their creators’ work. What happens to an object as it passes through time is important to 2 �museums, but once in museum collections there are important decisions to be made about what format we want to pass the object on in, and how we preserve what is significant about it. The awareness of technological objects as being three dimensional knowledge repositories is increasing. Likewise is the demand by researchers to be able examine and interrogate the unedited and untranslated “text” on their own behalf. It is becoming increasingly important that conservators of technological objects limit personal interpretation to a bare minimum, and clearly mark any additions to an object so that it does not run the risk of becoming an historical interpretation. The value of original technological objects as material testimonials to the society that created them is being recognized by museum conservators and curators. Thankfully the tide of “ruthless glamorizing … often with harmful, irreversible methods” (Van De Wetering, p.193) has begun to recede from the way we look at object care and display. There are many museum objects that to all intents and purposes look like, and may as well be, plastic models or mock up replicas. Their original fabric has been interpreted so heavily in pursuit of fulfilling the display fashion of the day that their historical value has become questionable. Through idealized interpretations they have become a misrepresentation to admiring onlookers. They tell of a history that never was. The personal interpretations of the restorers are imposed on the viewer, and the object becomes less about the makers’ intentions, and more about showing off restoration skill. If we ascribe part of the significance of an object to its capacity to yield raw research data then the degree to which it has not been modified or improved by museum practices becomes important. Too often traces of history have been made unintelligible, modified to give erroneous interpretations, or have been outright destroyed by attempts to meet the display imperative of the moment. As Lanord points out, when treating objects we are acting as custodians of human thought and aspiration, not just of matter: “The treatments and care we administer in the laboratory ought to return to the object, as much as possible, its significance…it must be remembered that … the object is not just inert physical matter … they are important … because of all they hold that is still alive in them … as an embodiment of the imagination … charged with very diverse meanings” (France-Lanord, p. 245). Conservation and restoration processes are some of the most high risk periods for objects. Not only are they subject to the potential for accidents or well intentioned but poorly executed repairs, they also run the risk of being devalued in the estimation of scholars and museum audiences. It has been said of painting conservation that “A retouching pushed until it is almost invisible, illusionist, has at times been condemned in principal, since it would constitute a fake” (Philippot, p.337). The introduction of new materials into technological objects should only be undertaken in ways that are clearly identifiable to anyone wanting to study an object in detail. At the NMA all introduced material is either clearly and permanently marked with the letters “NMA” and the date, or where this is impractical, is manufactured from materials clearly distinguishable from the originals. To do otherwise, that is, introduce new parts as if they were the originals, degrades the meaning of the object as a whole. People feel very different about replica objects compared to originals. Creating a replica by a slow process of attrition, one piece at a time, is none the less creating a replica. A 3 �technological object that is a confused jumble of original components and difficult-toidentify later additions is little different to a painting that has been overpainted a dozen times, with only remnants of the original composition showing through. Arguments about the impact of conservation treatments on the way an object is perceived are not new. In many cases they have been developed over decades. They tend to reside in the writings by historians and conservators of fine art. While our methods and materials may differ wildly, it is clear from this passage by Van De Wetering that technological object conservators do not need to reinvent the philosophical wheel: “… it is specifically the signs of natural aging and of wear that often provide us with the significant information about the material of which an object is made. These signs also provide instant information about the meaning of an object and about the ways and means in which it was used; they even let us know the extent to which it is valued – or neglected …Both the signs of aging and the signs of wear may be disturbed severely in the course of restoration; even if they are consciously respected by the restorers, an alien effect may result. The surface acquires a look that does not occur “in nature” … the objects have thus become, through such treatment, stylized objects of our own time” (Van De Wetering, p. 417-418). In 1926 an Australian adventurer named Francis Birtles used a rudimentary four cylinder car manufactured by the British Bean Car Company to break the Darwin to Melbourne land travel time record. In 1927-28 the same vehicle was used to make the first car journey from London, England to Sydney, Australia. The nine month “endurance trial” across the English Channel, down through Europe, the Middle East, India and South East Asia is one of the epic adventure stories from early motoring history. At the conclusion of the journey the Bean company donated the vehicle to the Australian government for display in a yet to be built National Museum, a process that was to take over seventy years. The conservation of the Francis Birtles Bean car for display meant making decisions about how we wanted objects represented to the Australian and wider public. This Bean had driven from London to Sydney before there were roads. Its significance was inherently linked to the fact that it had travelled this journey and was given to the Australian Commonwealth as an operational vehicle. Decades of pre-museum storage had resulted in a vehicle that no longer operated and was in critical need of stabilization. One of the early questions which arose in discussing a conservation treatment plan was “should the car be operational now?” The arguments about use causing wear and risk of loss are well travelled. Some people ignore them, others go to extreme lengths to mothball and preserve form. Our decision was built around arguing what was significant about this object. A factor that could not be ignored was that this vehicle was not towed into Sydney, it did not come in as a pile of parts on a wagon, it drove in. On this basis we took a decision that the vehicle should be capable of operation. There is a distinction here. Because the car is capable of operation does not mean that it must or should be operated. The would be no logical reason, for instance, to attempt an anniversary re-creation of the journey. But in the minds of visitors to the museum the realization that the car in front of them still operates after making that journey all those years ago adds meaning to the experience. Visitors to the Bean almost immediately notice the drip trays and small puddles of oil. As a museum professional it is interesting to stand in the background and watch 4 �visitor reactions. For many people, used to the drip free modern motor vehicle, this is cause for alarm. “What is wrong with it, why didn’t they fix the oil leaks?” Others smile knowingly, confident in their knowledge that most English vehicles of the period pretty much had a part number for the oil leak, but that they know how to fix them – “better than the museum”. We at the NMA are proud of the Bean’s oil leaks. We also could fix them, but have taken a deliberate decision not to. The car retains its leather, felt and slinger seals, it leaks oils from its haphazardly machined gasket faces, and when it runs it drips oil and water in ways that offend modern car owners. Our conservation processes were intended to preserve the limitations and failings of the car’s design, as much as its success stories. The car tells a more accurate story by showing off its faults, and for many people provides an entirely new experience of what motoring was like in the 1920s. Most people’s experiences of vintage cars are the immaculately restored and pampered examples owned by fastidious collectors. Enthusiasts have collected the premium models, added all the best period accessories, and made contemporary engineering improvements to improve reliability. These vehicles run the risk of misrepresentation, creating a world where an ideal glamorized interpretation comes to be assumed to be the way things were. In fact these cars were expensive, smelly, sprayed oil and water at inopportune moments, were difficult to start and were mechanically unreliable to the extent that many people found the horse a much more practical form of transport. By displaying the Bean “oil leaks and all” we keep alive an understanding of where our commuter society has come from. Many of the world’s record breaking vehicles are displayed in museums in lovingly restored conditions, some having been restored several times over. This Bean is one of the very few examples of theses early record breaking vehicles that has been left to tell its own story. Its body has literally broken in half from metal fatigue, the early aluminium castings exhibit stress fractures from the “cold” casting processes and the side of the vehicle has scorch marks from where an auxiliary fuel tank was accidentally set alight. The vehicle tells the story of a very difficult passage through time, of only just barely completing its journey and then of surviving its progression to national icon and museum display item. In conserving the Birtles Bean we were conscious of avoiding the fatal mistake of treating the object and losing the history it represented. As a technological development the vehicle held negligible significance. It was the journey it undertook that gave it a place in history and significance. What we sought to preserve was the journey. This meant that the polymerized oil, mud and grass adhered to the underside of the engine and gearbox were not something we wanted to remove, but a feature we wanted to preserve. To remove this material would be a akin to straightening the leaning tower of Pizza - it would take from the object the very thing that made it different and precious. Similarly the engine mechanicals were covered in spots of red paint. These were not an outrage of carelessness, but precious clues to the authenticity of the car’s mechanical components. By Raman Microscopy analysis, these specks of paint could be matched to the originally red bodywork. The by-product of paint application had given us a method of forensically identifying which parts of the vehicle had made the trip, and which were the result of later repair attempts. Potentially the seeds and soil grains still adhered to the cars underside will be able to validate stories about the route Birtles took on his journey. It is these tiny specks of information on an object that combine to validate it as an item of significance. Every time one is carelessly removed the chances of the object telling an even greater story are diminished. 5 �We go a step further with our approach. Our goal is that the vehicle be preserved as more than sculpture, and that its functionality be preserved. Our arguments for doing this are both philosophical and preservation based. The NMA has been conducting work over a number of years to evaluate the best methods of preserving functional objects. Part of our work on inhibiting technological objects is also presented at this conference. Corrosion inhibition in museum vehicles can be effectively achieved in vehicles that retain functionality. The NMA is conducting work to evaluate both static and functional preservation. To date our work has shown that structured functional maintenance programs are far superior to simple storage programs at preventing deterioration, and may be as effective as conventional mothballing techniques. The science behind this is discussed in our other publications. At the NMA objects that are required for periodic short term display are preserved as functional objects. By selecting specific oils, cooling system inhibitors, shut down and start up procedures we believe that the short periods of structured and controlled use are less damaging than conventional storage techniques and no more damaging than mothballing techniques. There are strong philosophical and practical reasons for carefully constructing conservation plans which take into account the goal of preserving the significant features an object embodies. The ongoing maintenance approach has a key advantage of retaining the functional significance of the object. These objects can be more accurately interpreted and better retain their place in human history. Conservation is not just about preserving the form a piece of matter takes, it is also about ensuring its significance is retained and meaning perpetuated. References: France-Lanord, A., 1965. Knowing how to “question” the object before restoring it. In Price (editor), 1996. Historical and philosophical issues in the conservation of cultural heritage. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, USA. Philippot, A. and Philippot, P., 1959. The problem of the integration of lacunae in the restoration of paintings. In Price (editor), 1996. Historical and philosophical issues in the conservation of cultural heritage. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, USA. Van De Wetering, E., 1982. The surface of objects and museum style. In Price (editor), 1996. Historical and philosophical issues in the conservation of cultural heritage. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, USA. Van De Wetering, E., 1989. The autonomy of restoration: ethical considerations in relation to artistic concepts. In Price (editor), 1996. Historical and philosophical issues in the conservation of cultural heritage. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, USA. 6 � https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/d812585d7b311856f11b7c7bfd3e7b38.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=VC0l8FcpPBK4Cp9sBLrV2LW4k8H1f-lMR15qUpUZgxY924b8V4%7Esuuapn8aD%7E6QmLfa8a9m7Hs4nkBG6ZbwmE-y%7E%7E0-qjBCYkC44AOmirjciYfyZxZo9Q9zcVj-yeezq0seVs0WOo6j-kb5eC81U4EdKWBdD8m2-Y1OclzYVFPzrz8ThrQpCqt1z8uR0WAQbAZVjfpVKMpkMbB7qfiENbqPpzCVe07QF%7EuLkI9T3H6m3bZ1eEVIO7rJYotrsuqEw-MOe4SMegFFGVJiksZY5M9cp%7E6eYwUJ9MBZ0NkW8C9s4r2oINVKqrgzWH8xHfr5aXx%7E0LrrbK9FYhCQX7olxIQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 14166d1a62ae0d63c942738971fb22e9 PDF Text Text Preserving significance: why the journey mattered more than the car David Thurrowgood - Question and answer session Nick Langford: In the photograph of the Benz engine that you said was highly polished – one of the things that I see as a problem for conservators (and this was discussed yesterday in a paper where [it was noted that] conservators aren’t engineers and engineers aren’t conservators) is that the rocker gear in that engine would have been polished from new, and that was to make the component much more reliable. So keeping it polished is part of the history of the thing as well, and that’s something I suppose that conservators need to look at as well. It’s just an example where some things were polished from new and some things weren’t. David Thurrowgood: I, as a conservator, don’t tend to object to polishing things if they’re supposed to be polished. What I do object is, in that case, where the nice little man seemed to go around every week to polish the thing again because people had put their hands all over it. Now polishing something once to a state where the makers intended it to be polished, and keeping it in that condition, is very different to polishing something routinely and progressively wearing down that object. David Hallam: Would you like to talk about how the Bean car entered the museum? David Thurrowgood: The Francis Birtles Bean car was possibly, depending on how you look at it, the National Museum’s first object. In 1927 and 28 it was driven from London to Australia and after that it did a bit of promotional work for the Bean Car Company. The Bean Car Company then, in 1928, donated it to the Commonwealth for a national museum should one ever be built. Now, 75 years later, was when we actually came to doing conservation work on that object and getting it ready for display in the museum. The big thing for us in conserving that object is that it came to us as a functional object which had achieved this amazing journey. In the intervening time it had been shunted around between different government storage areas because, when it finished the journey, it was “just another car” of the period. For us it was important that it was given to us as a machine which still worked after finishing that amazing journey and we still wanted to make sure that that function was still available for that object, even though we’re not ever going to take that object out and see how fast it’ll go or what else it can do. The important thing is that in people’s imagination that car finished that journey, and was working then and is working now. It’s capable of function but it’s not something we’re going to run out and use. Dave Rockwell: If, as you state, it’s not to be used, why was the decision made to replace the crown wheel and pinion? David Thurrowgood: I should probably elucidate what I mean by “Not to be used”. Some people will restore a museum object for use in terms of…they will use it in the car park for people to drive around and to show kids through. That’s happened with one of our objects in the past (before it came to our museum). [I mean] “use” in a different context; this is an object which would be available for use in terms of �filming and research and study and it’ll be run approximately every five years because we have ideas about the best ways of circulating inhibitors and maintaining the object. It’s to be used as part of its maintenance and preservation, but not as an everyday display use. That was the big part of its story – it drove from London to Australia, it still drives now – but we’re not going to try to recreate that journey by any means, as has been suggested by some members of the public! Col Ogilvie: I happen to be the pilot that drove that car. Old car, old fart – I drove it. To answer your question a little better – it was a question that I posed to the conservators way back – “Are we going to get this running?” The answer I got was “It was presented to the museum as a running object, it was functional; that was the charge we were given, that is the charge we should maintain. Tony Coleman: That photo of the crown wheel and pinion wasn’t the same car though was it? David Thurrowgood: Yes, it was. The crown wheel and pinion were manufactured down in Melbourne from the originals which had missing teeth. Tony Coleman: That picture shows a sankey wheel – the back wheel of the car’s not a wire wheel of the Bean I didn’t think? David Thurrowgood: The car has three wire wheels and one sankey wheel – the sankey wheel was put on in place of one of the wire wheels that was damaged during the journey. Tony Coleman: OK – that’s fair enough! � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Big Stuff 2004 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Article An article in a journal or periodical Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Preserving significance: Why the journey mattered more than the car Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource David Thurrowgood and David Hallam Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 authenticity functionality Operating Objects restoration significance https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/734e40c3101cfc0d6c4d2b9b12fd9b38.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=cVw159Qwi2kzHeRLrzER0sbBzeAqns43nz8LOTd6mu%7ECYyNk-164DxXmPiq88jDiLU-89tDonI%7EDL5SLp-PHjwYm7lHRaqMhROnoW-8tf%7E18FOeD2Qy4rALWDg4HiBkGPslTBuWO7W4ptkJ11zaPB6nHvpzzR0hv80bq3kO7T55eXSsGtGNW2jPXC67Bk4aDbPXj2vXJqmK6TchjXCf2BH7S0EBqRtoV8XCH84IafUNtvE2s097MPlcWFcY3yyR1plFPXdv6Dh8VWGlGq-2dOIYDAtWEdC6djyhmrOGcSksQsIkA5yCf0mnOYzwgICKbIEfUXcoKXk%7EaicqT4vv4kQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM c4766edf3236211f441f76a965712e4f PDF Text Text Corrosion, wear and corrosive wear; the story of lubrication systems in large technology object storage and use David Hallam, David Thurrowgood and Col Ogilvie National Museum of Australia My name is David Hallam; I’m currently Senior Conservator Research and Technology at the National Museum. That means that I’m in charge of our research programs and I’m also in charge of our technological conservation program. Before that I was Head of Conservation at Queensland Museum, and before that I spent 20 odd years at the Australian War Memorial and I love functional objects. I also like Volvos. Now, recently, believe it or not, I bought an early Volvo. It was a 1974 Volvo, had very little mileage on it. It had only done 180,000 kilometers since 1974. It had been well maintained. It lived at Grafton. Now for those of you who are not from Australia, Grafton’s a nice humid place. It sat for long periods between short journeys. The owner would take it out, take it for a short drive and park it in the garage again. It was always garaged and when I went to buy it I thought “Ripper - really original car!”. And then I started reading through the documentation that came with it and I went “Oooo - this is going to be interesting”. I got it ready for registration, put it through registration and started using it as my everyday car. Surprise. It failed. All of the oil seals blew. Now, many conservators will tell you that this is an example of how use is damaging. Oh, but it were so simple. I have an even older Volvo. A 36-year-old Volvo. A very, very rare Volvo that has done 288,000 miles (that’s 450,000 kilometers). It’s been used regularly. It was owned by a pushbike-riding fanatic who only used this car when he was going to go on a long trip. So it wasn’t used and then he took it on a long trip. Then he parked it back in the garage again. How many years would it take to do 450,000 kilometers in a museum maintenance program? 7800 years. Now, we’re kidding ourselves if we believe our institutions will last that long. And my car’s still going. Survival of the institutions is more likely to be the rate-limiting step to the preservation of my Volvo (in a museum) than wear. The aim of this paper is to stimulate discussion. I’m not going to give you any answers, I’m going to give you some ideas of what we think are our answers. Most museum preservation practice has not really advanced significantly since the mid 1980s as far as technological object preservation goes. In Australia, most museum practice really came from chemical processing specifications that the National Air and Space Museum in Washington was using, and basically I shifted it across in the mid 1980’s. It hasn’t been modified much since then, but really I don’t think our ideas on conservation have moved that much since then either. Working object practice in institutions is based on standard mechanical engineering workshop practice or migrated military inhibition practice. And again, it’s not really been adapted to museums and long-term use of objects. We’re still �doing things the way we would in a garage, or in steam workshop – again we really have not progressed. Our aim should be to find the rate limiting steps for maximising use and preservation. We believe that our conservation practice should be based on: – an assessment of the relative risks of wear and corrosion in the museum’s storage environment; – an assessment of the risks associated with application of a maintenance program to the collection as a whole; – the risks associated with the use of an individual object. You need an assessment of the risks associated with the application of a maintenance program to the collection as a whole. Now, it took 15 years or so to get the maintenance program for the Australian War Memorial up and running, and congratulations. Why did it fall over before? Because there were too many risks to it and what Alison’s1 done is taken administrative steps to remove those risks. It’s a great step forward. You need to look at the risks associated with the actual object. Standardised plans for treating objects are great just so long as they’re not used as blanket treatments. A race car engine is going to need totally, totally different preservation to my Volvo. The other thing we really need to push is - in cultural institutions we acknowledge Aboriginal objects, we acknowledge how Aboriginal culture should be taken into account when dealing with those objects. When it comes to engineering culture we totally forget about it. It doesn’t exist. We really need to concern ourselves with engineering culture what do the engineers, what do the people who own those objects, the elders of that area, what do they want done with those objects? And this is something I think conservators don’t do very well at all. We ignore the engineers. “Oh, they’re just mechanics.” Engineering is a science, every bit as complex as chemistry. We need to accept it and embrace it and bring it on board. This is why I believe an understanding for conservators of engineering and wear in museums is really important. Mechanical engineers will tell you that the best way to preserve a mechanical system is to keep it operational, operated and maintained and I think they are right. But we can do even better by applying some conservation practice. What are we conserving? • Conservation of Form • Conservation of Function • Conservation of both Function and Form • Rare trades and skills. • Smell, movement and vibration. • Passion, memories and feelings. 1 Alison Wain Manager, Textiles, Technology and Objects Conservation, Australian War Memorial �You’ve got to conserve the lot. Figure 1: Bean car arriving at the National Museum of Australia under it’s own power in 2000. What is the functional life span of the object? This may be three hundred years or only a decade. The key is to recognize the point at which wear and repair becomes desecration of the original. At some point it becomes better to preserve the original and create a replica for use. If you replace or repair enough of an item it is no longer the item you set out to preserve. Figure 2: Diagram of life cycle of machinery. �Figure 2 shows wear on the vertical axis and time along the horizontal axis. Basically, if you have an engine, you’ll get a little bump in the wear line when the engine is first run in, then the wear will stay pretty flat. This is the period of the economic life of the engine. Then, as the thing eventually starts to break down and reaches the end of its economic life, you get a great increase in wear. You’ll get this for the object as a whole and you will get this for the components of the object. What I’m talking about is the preservation and use of the object while it is within its economic life. Figure 3: Rust on the inside of a cylinder in an engine from the National Museum collection. Okay, I said I was going to talk about corrosion, corrosive wear and wear. What’s this funny thing called corrosive wear? Anyone know who Ricardo is? Basically Harry Ricardo2 is an engineer, a very famous one. English engineer, did a lot of experiments on lubrication and fuels. Was really interested in what happened when an engine fired - what happened inside the cylinders - and was trying to work out how wear occurred. He was really, I suppose, in a way one of the first real tribologists, which are people who study wear. He realized that lubricants covered the inside of a cylinder, but 2 Ricardo, Harry R. “The Ricardo Story The autobiography of Sir Harry Ricardo, Pioneer of Engine Research” 2nd ed Society of Automotive Engineers Warrendale, PA 1992 isbn 1-56091-211-1 �he couldn’t work out what actually was happening in there and was trying to develop an engine which you could actually look inside and stop suddenly. And then one day one of his experimental engines blew up and the cylinder flew off and hit the roof and came down and landed and smashed into pieces and he could actually see where the piston had been, and he could see instantaneously a corrosion ring formed. What had happened was the explosion from the fire from the propellant had burnt the oil off and literally caused an instantaneous layer of rust to form on the inside of the engine. Now, this is something that we don’t actually see happen in modern engines. We don’t get corrosive wear in modern engines basically because the fuels we use today are quite different (they’re not nearly as acidic), and because the lubricants that we use have a much higher film strength and literally bond to the metal surface inside the engine. Figure 4: Corrosive gel on Volvo rocker covers after an engine has been run without coming up to temperature. What we do get in modern engines is corrosion, and this is because quite often what we do with an engine is we drive a vehicle into a storage area and switch it off, turn off the fuel and walk away. We’re left with all the acidic residues and the moisture from the firing inside the cylinders, and the oil that’s there is really ineffective as a long term, protective coating. Oils are designed to be lubricants, they are not designed to be a coating and we end up with corrosion. The moisture and oil form literally a mayonnaise. This is what happens when you use a vehicle and you only use it for a very short time. �I’ve talked about wear and how long a vehicle would have to operate in order to wear itself out. A much worse thing that can happen, and happens often inside a museum, is corrosion and it really damages vehicles. It’s probably happening in every museum we know of, it’s avoidable, and I would almost say it’s criminally neglectful. Figures 5 and 6 show our Land Rover. It’s done 3,802 miles since 1958. A thousand of those miles have been done in the museum service. It’s been filled with a standard lubricating oil. The lubricating oil has been changed about every year. Last time it was used, it was used for the royal tour. We were starting a maintenance program on it and we thought “Well, we’ll whack an introscope down and see what’s happened inside it”. It had sat for about two years. Figures 5 and 6: Corrosion inside the National Museum Landrover cylinders You can see there the corrosion. If we had kicked that engine over, what would have happened? The piston would have gone up and scraped the corrosion off. What’s corrosion? An oxide. What are oxides used as? Abrasives. What size are they? Very small - small enough to go through the filter. So what you’ll end up with is this very fine abrasive slurry, that won’t be picked up by the filter, rotating round and round inside the system. And that’s exactly what happened with my Volvo. I ended up with this nice abrasive slurry and it went through and it ripped out all of the oil seals and did a whole lot of damage. In the museum, if we had kick started the Land Rover, the same thing would have happened. Okay, how have we overcome that? We use nothing but inhibited oils, we don’t use any standard lubricating oils in our institution. Why did we come to this conclusion? We’ve come to this because we’ve actually done some product testing. We tested the oils as coatings not as lubricants. We intend over the next year to do a whole lot more product testing of oils as coatings We’re also going to be doing some work on maintenance cycles because we don’t know whether the maintenance cycle for that Land Rover with an inhibited oil in it should be one year, five years or ten years. And that’s going to make a big of a difference to our planning cycles. We’re also trying to work on a concept of what we’re calling Just Noticeable Wear and I’ll talk about that in a little because one of the things we want to make sure is that our �thoughts on automotive preservation are spread wide and to that end we’re currently working on a manual for museums. I talked about research, here’s something that people might be interested in. We’ve actually been doing some oil testing using Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS). Penrite Shelsley Medium POP2 Castrol GTX Older Vehicles 160 BSTK Uncoated steel 500-SNO Figure 7: EIS spectra for various engine oils. From bottom to top this shows: • a piece of uncoated steel with no oil - that’s the resistance it produces, it’s a bit rough, corrodes reasonably easily; • a piece of steel coated in a lubricating oil; • a piece of steel coated in a base lubricant - a lubricant that has no additives in it (the same base that is used to make up the next oil); • a classic vehicle oil, gives a little better corrosion protection; • an inhibited oil formulated specially for us by Penrite - gives good protection; • a Penrite inhibited classic vehicle oil. Now the fascinating thing about this is the difference between the uncoated surface and the protection given by the most protective oil is ten thousand times. So we can say that this particular oil is several thousand times more protective than some of the least protective. That’s quite an amazing amount. So just by using this kind of oil (and it doesn’t have to be this particular brand) - an inhibited oil - we’re getting massive amounts of protection, and this can totally change our maintenance plan. We’ve obviously also done salt spray tests and other kinds of tests on oils as coatings, and we’re going to be continuing this over the next two to three years. �One of the other things we’re trying to develop is a concept which we’ve taken basically from paper conservators. Paper conservators at the Victoria and Albert, when they display something, talk about Just Noticeable Fade and we’re trying to get this concept into functional objects so we can talk about Just Noticeable Wear (JNW). We don’t know yet exactly how it’s going to work, but we want to be able to quantify the wear of objects and actually talk about what lifetimes we can get out of them, so that we actually know the rate of degradation that they’re undergoing. How should we be carrying out any running? • warm start; • run all systems up to full working temperature; • run for a minimum time (30 minutes?) at varying load; • dehumidify systems on closedown. Okay, this is what we use in the museum and what we recommend other people use, and this is how we currently believe people should be running objects in museums. Notice that we’re dead against running anything for a short period of time. We believe that things should be started warm, run for long enough to achieve full working temperature and stopped in a dehumidified environment. And they should be run under a varying load. We’re currently investigating getting a dynamometer for our museum, so we can run them without actually leaving the building. Maintenance is the core to everything. A program of structured maintenance is likely to substantially improve the probability of a mechanical object’s survival, as the deterioration from wear and corrosion during controlled continuous use and maintenance cycles can be substantially less significant than the damage caused by neglect and periodic, interventionist rebuild cycles. We’ve heard people talk about costs of maintenance. We believe that periodic running and maintenance is very cost effective. We estimate that a stable, running, 1930s vehicle, using appropriate inhibitors costs $500 a year to maintain for materials and labour. It’s not really that much money. In principle, most functional objects are best preserved by preserving their ability to function and using that to conserve them. That’s the only way you can get inhibitors inside for instance. This does not mean that they must be constantly functioning, or operate at maximum capacity. Mechanical objects should preferably be preserved in a state capable of operation, regardless of whether that operation happens once a day or once a decade. Acknowledgements • Veteran Vintage and Classic Lubrication • Penrite Oil Company • University of Canberra for the use of its Raman Microscope Facility • Research School of Chemistry, Australian National University �• • • • Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, Australian Defence Force Academy National Museum of Australia for the generous support of scientific research by its staff. Ian Stewart, Barry Lambert, Bruce MacDonald and others. Openoffice.org. For the presentation software. � https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/346805d8d0a15a0b0ed0da42db3d5138.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=mNLncyUqMx62T5Nk-PPWgf2%7Eq00CpuXR6tk5l5LkuwXAXUoP9kryXcpsqpE6Ii5%7ESfyahj0UArErjBpR2EtBdcVVA1vGAS5ubAjKbplHXfGnaClQILaky8Labj8T%7EeYwCpZ42ps7W5CmYJoEvnH%7E9UlYijhbu8gdHIRgOrSK7PeMzhxJ2wnQwSfFbChqaYiavjhLSTGi57HXn83h9I44LgGlxFpHWSOgwxVtAgVzTOHtkWQWNatATrRXjJm-%7E945iOG8HsyXXaaIRCK8Q9Hb-0WrMylcxPdO2jRZ30AMQXFIaVeZ2ad73-jIgZFIR1zwRBgWacJw%7Ekr5S2nprGa3dA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM dc98b84624dd62a9a344bfa851c06fc9 PDF Text Text Corrosion, wear and corrosive wear; the story of lubrication systems in large technology object storage and use David Hallam, David Thurrowgood and Col Ogilvie - Question and answer session Davina Bonner: I’m just interested in your concept of the economic life of objects. At what point do you find that an object reaches the end of its economic life and what do you do with it then? David Hallam: You mothball it. Davina Bonner: Is that deaccessioning? David Hallam: No, no - the economic life thing actually came from someone who was a conservator at the Henry Ford (I forget his name), in the mid 1980s. He’s now somewhere down in the south, I’ll remember his name. And it was used to describe the useful life of an object in the world. And what I’m saying is that if something is within that economic life then we can maintain it. We can put it into a maintenance cycle and use it’s functionality to preserve it. Once it gets outside that economic life it is worn out and any function will damage it. Davina Bonner: So you’d look to stabilize…. David Hallam: I would look to mothball it. Davina Bonner: Thank you David Hallam: Using military mothballing techniques. Dave Rockell: We actually run our - we don’t actually have a working car fleet as such anymore - but we have 15 years ago mothballed our whole collection. But two particular cars have been silicon brake fluid treated, plus inhibitor oils and have been suspended in the museum’s roof for 11 years. This year we actually got them out of the roof and reversed our processes and within two hours were driving around the car park. Which is what we thought, because everything’s theory up until you actually try to fire one up again. David Hallam: Okay, I personally would not use – ever - silicon fluids because I believe that traditional fluids are more maintainable. And I think that we need to do some more work there, we need to do some electrochemistry on what actually happens with traditional fluids. But I do have concerns; I’m pleased that you can do that, but I do have concerns with the use of silicon brake fluids. Alison Wain: Could you say why? David Hallam: Because if they’re not applied properly you will end up with pitting corrosion and very, very rapidly totally stuff your brake system. And it’s much simpler to stay with what they were designed for and to add corrosion inhibitors. �Nick Langford: To support your …what you were just saying about silicon brake fluids; we’ve had many disasters with silicon brake fluids in a short space of time, in cars which we’ve prepared for either historic racing or just the, sort of, enthusiast type use. We are getting severe corrosion in aluminium cylinders, with the result that you end up with no brakes whatsoever, which is not very good for the conservative attitude of the motorcar when it hits the tree or something. We’ve found that the best thing to use is the conventional brake fluids - the higher temperature brake fluids are much better than the lower temperature brake fluids for use in drum brake vehicles (which are the cars of the thirties). And the best thing to do with brake fluids is to use [the vehicle] and get the brake fluid hot, and then all of the moisture which has been absorbed into the brake fluid is boiled off and you don’t have any problems. If you use conventional brake fluid on a regular basis it lasts for a long time, and if you look at the service instructions on modern cars for instance the modern brake fluids have a shelf life I think of about two years. So if you take your Volvo, or whatever you choose to drive, in to get serviced, you’ll see that they will change the brake fluids on a regular basis. So it should be treated the same as changing the oils. Thank you. David Hallam: I agree with that. Nikki King-Smith: I’ve got two V16 turbo-charged power plants in the object that I’m supposed to be conserving. I think I’m going to be having a bit of trouble firing those up! They’re of recent vintage. Would you consider that keeping the parts moving (to move the lubrication systems) with an ancillary engine or motor of some sort would be a better case scenario than just mothballing? I mean, I just don’t think that I’m going to be able to turn these things on and maintain them. David Hallam: The problem is, in order to mothball them properly, they need to run. So really what should have happened was the last time that they were run (and this never happens), is they should have been mothballed properly, if they weren’t going to run. Nikki King-Smith: What do I do now? David Hallam: I would tend to use lubricating oils and circulate them through. And I think if you can rotate them, as part of a maintenance program, I think that would be useful. You also should consider dehumidification, dropping the RH inside the actual engines themselves. Using a Munter system or something. I mean how big are they? Nikki King-Smith: Locomotive engines. They’re in the submarine. David Hallam: Yeah, I think you need to consider some dehumidification. Alison Wain: If you do mothball something, even mothballing - if we’re talking about preserving something for decades, hundreds of years potentially - you’ve got to renew that mothballing at some stage. So what do you do then, particularly if you can’t fire your object up? David Hallam: You’ve got a bit of a problem. That’s why in a lot of ways I consider mothballing to be second best. Mothballing becomes part of your cyclic restoration �phenomena, which is why a maintenance program where you can actually kick the thing over is far better. Alison Wain: Even if that’s not firing it up? David Hallam: Yeah, even if that’s not firing it up. That would be my preferred, because at least then you can change the oil. John Kemister: Another suggestion, if you can’t fire it up, is maybe you can throw a few cc’s of vapour phase inhibiting oil in the top end. Now you’ve got to watch that, because if you crank it subsequently you can get a hydraulic block. But usually over the years a few cc’s usually trickle down through the ring caps anyway. Put it in the top and spray it around with a little nozzle. David Hallam: One of the things that you’ll find with an oil that has a decent inhibitor package in it, is it has vapour phase inhibitors and surface inhibitors. So I would suggest that it’s best to go with one package rather than mix and match, because you don’t know what’s in there and you really have to be careful with vapour phase inhibitors They’re wonderful, but I think you’ve got to be careful because they attack things like lead, cadmium, and a few other things like that which you may have in your bearings. So you need to find out what’s in there. What the materials are. Gillian Mitchell: David, I’m interested in your idea of the monitoring and the idea of Just Noticeable Wear and wondering - have you got to the point where you’re thinking about how you might actually go there, and what indicators, where you’ll be looking at and how you’ll measure them? David Hallam: No, we’ve just floated the idea at the moment and we’re very interested in any input, but basically we think it’s a useful way of describing things. Colin Ogilvie: The unfortunate thing about Just Noticeable Wear is for 50 years being a mechanic it’s easy, I’ll have a listen to it, and have a smell of it, and have a feel of it, and yeah, it’s buggered or yeah it’s okay mate she’ll be right. It’s easy for me, but how do you get feel, smell, taste, over to people? You can’t. It’s an experience, so we’ve got to measure it. As a mechanic and an engineer, I can measure most parts of a car in one form or another and I can tell you whether it’s good, bad, or indifferent - it’s longevity, they’re reasonably easy, but I’ve got to do some handling. Now if I had a 16 cylinder turbo charged engine that weighs around about eight and a half tonne I don’t think I’d be looking to dismantle that tomorrow afternoon. So I’ve got to have some form or some way of knowing. You must start off with a base line and that’s where we’re really at now, is where do we start from? That’s our Just Noticeable Wear beginning. Another year, we might be able to tell you. Andrew Pearce: A few years ago when we were first talking to you about vehicles and oils and things like that and you were in the early stages of involvement with Penrite - we were talking about spectroanalysis of engine oils, which was one of the features that they were offering to you. I’m in an interesting position, where originally I was actually working with the South Australian railways - funnily enough on big 16 cylinder turbocharged diesel engines - and spent about six months of my electrical apprenticeship working in the chemical testing laboratory in the railways, �where funnily enough every week we were running big spectroanalysis test runs on all of the engine oils from the locomotives in the fleet. Are you planning on using things like the spectroanalysis results you’re getting back from engine oils to pick up the early stages of wear? Because that was one of the things that we were doing with the oils - you could see when the lead and copper and things like that started appearing. David Hallam: In theory it sounds great, but if something is corroding and it’s not moving, how do you analyse it? In order to use spectral analysis it needs to be running continuously. So I mean yeah, great, if we’ve got something in a display fleet that’s fine, but if it’s the prototype Holden and it’s on display in the Nation Gallery and it’s not running at the moment, how do we monitor it? Andrew Pearce: You don’t get the materials building up in the oil and you definitely don’t build up the base line enough to get a fingerprint of what’s normal. David Hallam: No. And it’s only done eight miles since it was rebuilt. So it most probably isn’t worn in. So you know, you’ll still be picking up all that first piece of a peak. So, we’ve got a long way to go. We’re just flagging it. Joanna Barr: Just a quick question. Is a maintenance regime such as you and Alison described going to work where there isn’t museum quality climate control and there are known condensation problems? David Hallam: Yes, it will, you just make it more often. Basically, well, it depends on your environmental corrosivity, so really you need to get some idea of that. You need some measurement of your environmental corrosivity and then you can start looking at that. Joanna Barr: Yeah, so in a regional country area where….. David Hallam: Yeah, well, six monthly, yearly, you know, up it like that. This is where you know, we think we’ll be down to five yearly maintenance cycles here, but we don’t know. We’re not there yet. Joanna Barr: So we are potentially looking at a system that is very manageable for a very volunteer [organization]? David Hallam: Yes, that’s the great thing Joanna Barr: Yeah. David Hallam: Yeah, it’s not new tech. Joanna Barr: It’s low tech. David Hallam: Yeah, you just change the oil, just use a different one. Joanna Barr: No, that’s great. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Big Stuff 2004 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Article An article in a journal or periodical Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Corrosion, wear and corrosive wear; the story of lubrication systems in large technology object storage and use Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource David Hallam, David Thurrowgood and Col Ogilvie Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 corrosive wear economic life functionality Just Noticeable Wear maintenance oil Operating Objects operation https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/dffcaefdb68a4409076c9fa62ded1460.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=uP62ZFM2VpfKAjwjZGp4nvSNJjkw94BGfAhhuBr3vZCTjJWN1Vg5ZaxEbCsfHi5646Kh5SoeFRbUxzfpIECZuSLgrvt6nBWg2PGx5pn6j2%7EWz5OIHb914F5vEoeN89s2acuEJ-%7E6D5tVXdUwoXxcdpB5MWgGFGaJzd71RPLg0eeGSzY0RCdzYp-dcHPWXImTgZ0PW6plg6JsI2R15l92MHBDnvPuggWSdTJ0GdNDc01oCTRY1UqpoUmAs0oObbW9jsCMV0GKHtiS1WUB3Hj1HnNyOsRpuW9iVFznhxU%7EEfC3U%7EovtjkidR7Bv3WjI1aY6jPg9ClvOGcMFnthBsW69A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 4d96837617f545bafd8af5235851ea74 PDF Text Text Conservation: from a Tradesman’s point of view. Colin Ogilvie National Museum of Australia “What is a mechanic like you doing in a place like this?” The place: The National Museum of Australia. Large technical objects repository and laboratory, Mitchell, A.C.T. The purpose: Under direction conserve large technical objects from the collection. Why an older mechanic? Training and skills from a bygone era. Younger Visitors to the Vicars Street laboratory often expressed remarks such as “We did not realise Australia kept live fossils” or “What is your accession number?” Being thick skinned it took me a couple of years to become aware of the verbal intent so now it helps to be deaf as well. I have two stories to relate. Number One will be the Bean and number two the Crossley. The large technology objects (LTO) collection consists of many items from clocks to cannons, cars to cranes and various powered and un-powered transport mediums. The majority contain metal contrivances from the past two centuries and those of you born in the earlier half of the last century have had the opportunity to come in contact with, work on, or work with a goodly portion of these objects. Hence “the old fart” as commonly called enters the scene. In the beginning, some eighteen years past, the LTO storage was very basic. Objects were stored in a large, environmentally unfriendly shed where selected items were placed on a basic maintenance programme. Not much has changed in the storage department but the objects are now subject to some form of scrutiny from which a conservation programme is developed. It is at this point that the older gentleman expressing wind enters. Requested by the Senior Conservator to assist all conservators in their efforts to conserve the collection. (Yeah, she’ll be right mate.) Prior to moving into the current laboratory facility the conservation work was being performed on the floor of the environmentally unfriendly shed. The first major project was the Bean Car of Francis Birtles. This also was the first major project for the new conservator, David Thurrowgood, under whose direction I would be working. (She’ll be right mate.) Two days into the programme the Pup (David T) requests the removal of engine mechanical parts. (Yeah, no worries mate.) I begin to remove the retaining nuts by fitting a socket. Now every mechanic knows that fitting a socket to a nut will remove extraneous dirt and foreign matter. Before you can blink, there is a plastic bag and a brush catching the falling rubbish with the Pup on the end of it. Lesson One, Day Two. Check with conservator whether he/she wants the rubbish on the nuts and bolts. �Explanation: “The dirt on those nuts is a historical record of the vehicle’s trip from England to Australia.” Ding, the bell rings. Question to conservator: “How am I going to remove and replace parts without the loss of history?” Of course the answer was common logic “Very, very carefully.” Dilemma: How does a very well practiced mechanic assemble an engine with historical dirt attached when normally engine assembly is done in a clean room environment? Very simple stupid. Very, very carefully. Conservation 1. Mechanics 0. Caution now being my middle name, things proceeded at a much more reduced rate. Not because I was bludging, just being very careful. The braking system was next on the agenda, with major work having to be performed. After disassembly and long discussions it was decided to replace two dust covers. One cover was nearly nonexistent and the other was missing. Made of brass plate of approximately one millimetre thick and rounded contour, it posed a machining headache. Very old technology prevailed, spun on a wooden block, and a couple of days later replicas were fitted. Lesson Two, Day Four. Slow down and do the job properly. Conservation 1. Mechanics 1. The final drive assembly was in a terrible state due to abuse during earlier partial restoration. The decision in this instance, made after long deliberation, was to rebuild the centre as close to the original as possible. To enable this to be achieved a new crown wheel and pinion would have to be made. Suitable drawings were produced and the Pup, with old parts in hand, made a special trip to the gear cutters in Melbourne. Mechanics question: “why not send it by courier?” Answer from Conservator: “…And if the courier looses the original parts?” Lesson Three, Day fourteen. Re-evaluate values of broken or worn out parts. Conservator 2. Mechanic 1. Many months later it is assembly time. That wonderful time when a mechanic gets to put all pre-planning and preparation into one package. Fifty years working on engineering pieces and for the first time mechanical components are to be assembled without meticulous washing, in other words bloody dirty. Just how in hell do you do it? Yeah I know, “very, very carefully”. And so it came to pass that the Bean was put together with dirt as an identified component of the vehicle and the assembly was very successful, as was the first test run. The final test run was most pleasing as the Bean car drove into its display area at the new Acton building. Why was this so pleasing? The vehicle was presented to the Museum in 1928 in “as it finished its world trip” condition. The vehicle was functional and now some seventy odd years later it drove home. Conservation: one hell of a big congratulations. Mechanic: One hell of a different attitude. Final lesson. Never assume anything, especially in haste, as false assumption breeds historical waste. �Case Two. The Crossley presented a very different set of values. This historical vehicle, used by the Queen mother and King George whilst Duke and Duchess of York, at the opening of Old Parliament house in the late 1920s, had undergone a 1970s restoration. This restoration left many mechanical components in a condition less than satisfactory, with catastrophic failure results likely in the near future. The initial investigation required the replacement of a rear axle oil seal, a relatively easy and not very timeconsuming job. Upon strip and removal it was found that many other components had suffered from lack of maintenance or amateur abuse. This promoted a detailed investigation into the complete mechanical train with a resultant “ Oh God, what do we do now?” Here we are with a beautiful historical vehicle and every mechanical component had suffered at the hands of amateurs, or from bad professional advice. Dilemma: “moth ball the object” or “make it functional”. The answer from the Senior Conservator “This object was purchased as a functional object and it is the intention of conservation to keep it that way.” Well you can’t argue with that. Can you? So begins the story of the Crossley. With a complete mechanical rebuild confronting the conservation staff, a plan of attack was devised. Remember the rule KISS - “Keep It Simple Stupid” - well that was the cunning plan. One assembly and one component at a time. Starting at the front, the engine was the first assembly to receive treatment. All components were removed - normal mechanical strip down - and examined for wear, abuse and originality. To our horror every component other than the crankshaft and main bearings would need some form of major treatment. Some parts were so bad that repair was impossible. The water pump, being so badly corroded, was the first for remanufacture. Comment from the Pup: “We can make a new one of these can’t we?” Never let it be said that a mechanic would walk away from a challenge. “Yeah, no worries mate”. Might I add that we have no casting facilities, only a small lathe and a beautiful old milling machine. The truth of the matter was that I had no B……. idea on how we were to manufacture this very intricate component. Anyhow a billet of alloy and much swearing cursing and cunning later produced a water pump housing to which all other components would mate. The stamping on this new housing would make it clear to later investigators that the unit was made at the National Museum of Australia on a particular date and by whom. That’s great! Future conservators will now be able to throw accurate rocks at the mechanic. Remember the phrase “ Old age and cunning always beats youth and exuberance”? The next component illustrates this. The rocker shaft was of particular note as it had suffered from abuse and wear sufficiently badly enough to warrant a new shaft. Unable to purchase a new shaft, manufacture became the only solution. The selection of material came from Bholer, a steel supplier in Sydney and the Pup, under direct supervision of the mechanic, undertook the chore of manufacture. (Role reversal.) The manufacture of this rather accurate shaft required the drilling of a hole throughout the longitudinal axis, a �distance of approximately seven hundred millimetres or roughly thirty inches. To achieve this required patience and endurance as well as considerable technical dexterity. The mission was accomplished and the new shaft is now an operational component in the engine. Question: “How do you make a conservator a tradesman?” Answer: “Start off with a dexterous conservator.” The rebuilding of the mechanical train in this vehicle took considerable effort, time and planning. In total five hundred and sixty eight parts were made, to achieve the final goal of having a functional object which did not depart from its social history. This was an achievement for both conservation and engineering staff. To the question “What’s a mechanic like you doing in a place like this?” the answer is “instilling old learning and skills into the future of our institutions by making our young conservators aware of engineering culture”. � https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/ea1ce7d24a265fad4a47c0ea72af0245.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=fOaH89p4G8CFlA0g2d0scIkHz68b-MQi1EnZ%7EOEp-oLVz4E3yjuj2uaA55PKOW-HMZhjQ6BJZJHPX4yVVbeH8MqghILkoBa2ccB5G1XCL2%7E5RwO%7E47Z1hNZUf7jjR65EvEN6%7EpyL0KCWxg9c3fmap40%7EQZFdQFaczNOSUaHLc1lnTvqkc1F5YP-aZwWjBkVuKaIfQHSjfLleQyH%7E-HjGHwDYHP7ekx79XJPz%7Ef3JCu%7EleeFGW44YAErVRxHHv3gj1c7BNMaiSnzoibS9LNkVflf9xLNXeAFusZ%7EN2l7JvHKst%7E3n7hI29zJQUVlLIMbILb-p1Fg10z5FLnrj2-NJ8g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 8ee99ed404d604542f0736d3c4ab943c PDF Text Text Conservation: from a Tradesman’s point of view. Col Ogilvie - Question and answer session Chris Knapp: You were explaining the difference in approach between an engineer and a conservator and what you’ve learned. Do you enjoy using the new skills that you’ve learnt; do you get fun from what you do? Col Ogilvie: You know I’ve spent 20 years as a teacher of automotive engineering, then the next 15 or so in private industry in my own business. The last - three? I think four – have been up at the museum. I wish I’d done it thirty five years ago. The skills I’ve learnt up here are totally different – it’s an appreciation of historical culture, engineering-wise. And that is the big thing. An acceptance by a mechanic, fitter and machinist – I’ve got multi-skilled trades here. Having to manufacture a part gives you an appreciation of engineering culture, but over a period of time that engineering culture suffers – such as the type of material we’ve used and so on - what happens to it. Since I’ve been with these pair of chemists I’ve learnt a lot. I now know not to make some things out of what I used to make them. I know now that I put on a pair of white gloves, not because it’s going to put dirt on the car or it’s going to put dirt on me, it’s because I know I’m not going to corrode that car in any manner, shape or form. So I’ve learnt one hell of a lot and it is important not only that conservators learn engineering, but that engineers learn conservation. It’s an absolute must. That’s one of the big problems I foresee with our volunteer program, that we should educate them first, before we bring them in. Fred Haynes: I know where you’re coming from because I’ve got a trade background myself; I trained as a scientific instrument maker – one of those lost trades. How do you resist the temptation of getting those things looking all nice and shiny and making them work again? If you’ve got no conservators hanging around to make you do it! Col Ogilvie: One of the biggest problems for me to come into this conservation mode has been to restrict my activity and to slow it down. You see, being in private industry you tend to go hard at something and go for it. And the consequence of that has always been - it’s economically correct, but historically brrrgh – mightn’t last too long. Now I’ve got to look at it the other way and get it historically right, so that in 200 years some bugger can come up, turn the key, start it and drive off. If he can do that, I’ve done my job and that’s the way I’ve got to think now. A lot different to tomorrow - jumping in, turning the key and driving off. Fred Haynes: Yes, I can appreciate that feeling because I came from the background of an instrument workshop – had to prepare things to as-new, workable condition for the navy. When I went out to Spectacle Island there was all that stuff waiting to be repaired and made as-new again and yes, coming to a couple of these courses here has made me appreciate that’s the difference. And I might just make the comment about conservators and mechanics and engineers – there was an engineer who said he would have made a conservator, but he didn’t have enough parts… � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Big Stuff 2004 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Article An article in a journal or periodical Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Conservation: from a Tradesman’s point of view Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Col Ogilvie Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 conservation Operating Objects operation restoration volunteers https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/bb6263168c8e073731839b14c708f7ef.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=k8R5odpln4WjfYKXl92ZcM%7E4zYcagYoVDCiX2lB%7EcknaiV03BzlfFY0th--cKcfl4d2cPlQk7kVjClroYoM2V%7E6ShEcgANlzjUynn9NV03Ofurif05GKZ0fJ-qdx-6rbAWf%7EBUdZsjoYRqewl%7E-1ePKXSJbyo3cew-0rhQiPvEISyvBsDRye4RHQxqSY05OFyquugw%7Ebp7%7EouNj%7EWFno815R6UP2S11NYQXmmkaEPqRsKYwCOmoymqDLt4I0Vhf8NcvQW6ZVWGm7kqzz90SjpmJen1B9rCmzy1JsGka56%7EAalCuxVwc226fFslAGBTlluP0e2w0RstQdw2AKy6Zm4w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM dd6e0f0b66f4dca7ca6e7ca7e648b09e PDF Text Text A well-planned operation Alison Wain Australian War Memorial Abstract: Just as the physical nature of most large technology objects is composite – a whole emerging from the physical connection of many parts – so the functional nature of these objects is also composite – a whole generated by the interaction of many smaller functions. Conservators and curators routinely make decisions about which parts of an object to prioritise for conservation, but they also need to make clear decisions about which functions they wish to conserve and why. This paper discusses the factors that can make the difference between the well-planned operation of a functional object and a money-guzzling, low-return headache. Introduction Large technology objects are, by definition, big. Most of them are big because they are composed of many smaller components, each with its own distinct function. These smaller functions interact to create higher level functions – the ability of a gasket to function as an effective seal for instance is vital to the correct functioning of an hydraulic system. Large technology objects are, however, often described on display as if each one were an indivisible whole. “It is of period A, it represents technology B, it is in condition C, it fulfils function D”. A simplified description like this is appropriate to many displays, presenting a clear picture to the public in relatively few words. When it comes to actually working on a large technology object however, as any good mechanic knows, it is a collection of small objects. How those objects are put together is vital – the whole is more than the sum of the parts – but it can still be broken down into the parts, and usually has been at regular intervals during its operating life. This reducible quality means that over an object’s lifetime the various different parts acquire distinct life histories. By the time an object enters a museum collection its different components are of different ages and stages of wear, different sources and manufacturers and different materials. The history of each of these determines its degree of historical significance and its relevance to the purpose of the collection. The same can be said of the object’s functions. Most large technology objects have a range of different functions – provision of motive power, ability to move around, ability to perform a specific work task such as lifting or weaving, ability to stop, ability to send signals or register information. Through the object’s working life these functions are adapted, updated, replaced, disused and discarded, along with the components that make them happen. Each of these functions may have a different level of historic authenticity or relevance to the purpose of the collection, and may present different opportunities and difficulties for display. �In particular, functional objects present the opportunity - perhaps the obligation to maintain their functions. The concept of responsibility to preserve intangible heritage is growing rapidly (Galloway, 2004 and Wain, 2004) and includes aspects such as the sensory experience of large technology and the skills associated with its care and operation. To decide whether it is appropriate to maintain a particular function however, it is important to consider the level of cultural significance of that function and determine whether maintaining it will be informative, useful and relevant - or just an expensive white elephant. Which functions are worth keeping? Making large technology functions “go” is much more popular – indeed expected – than the operation of small technological objects. In fact, while it is seen as a worthy aim in itself to collect small objects and place them on static display, to collect large objects and put them on static display is often seen as something to be ashamed of. How often have you heard the heartfelt lament “It’s such a pity you can’t have them all working...”? But when people talk about a large technology object working they often just mean getting the engine going and having the main movable bits move. For large objects built before the middle of the twentieth century these are pretty much all the functions they had to offer and even these were somewhat experimental in nature. So to provide an insight into the technology and “feel” of these early machines, motive power and basic movement works well and is not too difficult to achieve. However maintaining these functions is still a resource hungry commitment and before making that commitment the question should be asked how many engines do the public want to hear? At what point do the costs of maintaining and demonstrating even these limited functions outweigh the return in public interest? Functional complexity begins to explode after the Second World War, with features such as hydraulics, feedback systems, communications, fire suppression systems and many more. And yet “operating” these objects still tends to mean turning the engines on and having the main movable bits move. This is still impressive (these are, after all, big machines), but perhaps this is an area where a wider range of functions could be explored, combining the public’s appreciation for operating objects with a greater variety of experiences. Some of the alternative functions may in fact be safer and cheaper to manage than running an engine, and more suited to use inside interior spaces such as galleries. For example, large technology objects in the Memorial’s collection with functions which run independently of the objects’ engines are the Sea Fury aircraft (folding wings) and the M113A armoured personnel carriers (openable rear access ramps). Some large technology functions may be difficult to manage in their original configuration, but be relatively easily adapted for museum use. Most aircraft hydraulic systems, for example, are normally powered by a pump driven by the running engine (or an electric backup pump) and operate at high pressure to �overcome the aerodynamic forces on the flight surfaces during flight. A pinhole leak in such a high pressure system could result in the escape of a stream of hydraulic fluid. However an alternative low pressure, hydro- electric system could be manufactured to replace or run alongside the existing hydraulic system, and be operated by a simple electronic program. This could perhaps even be made to respond to visitor operated controls and used to demonstrate the effect of changing the shape of flight surfaces on the aircraft’s performance (Croker, 2004). In the early twenty-first century many functions in large technology objects are being designed to be run by separate layer of functional systems – automated computer systems (Graham-Rowe, 2003, issue 2420). For these objects just running the engine and moving the main movable bits is not an option. Most of the movable bits are not directly connected to the control mechanisms used by the operator – they are activated by the electronic systems in response to a combination of operator delivered instructions and factory set instructions about the best way to safely run the machine. To even run the engine and move the main movable bits in these objects it is necessary to maintain the functional electronic operating systems to manage them. This brings new challenges which I do not believe the museum world has yet grappled with. One of these is that a mechanic can no longer maintain these systems without expensive specialist training and diagnostic equipment – dedicated training and equipment which is produced by, and specific to, particular vehicles or products. The Memorial’s Bushmaster infantry mobility vehicle, for instance, requires separate equipment and training to maintain its CAT engine and its Allison gear box. Commercial and (in the Memorial’s case) military secrecy may become an increasing barrier to functional maintenance of historic objects, either passively as a result of training and equipment costs, or actively, particularly with objects which are still sold commercially or used on active military service (Schroeder, 2004). The use of computerised systems in large technology also brings in all the problems currently faced by other users of digital technology in the heritage industry, including rapid obsolescence of hardware and software (particularly specialised proprietary products), bugs, viruses, data corruption and incompatibility with earlier systems. The future may hold a number of other ethical and practical challenges which have not yet landed on the workbench of the unsuspecting conservation mechanic. For example components of modern large technology objects are increasingly being made to be replaced when damaged – it is often not possible to repair them (Graham-Rowe, 2003, issue 2377). The day is also fast approaching when many components will not be built but “grown” using genetic algorithms – not even their manufacturers will know quite how they work, or quite how they could go wrong (Davidson, 1997). A malfunctioning electronic security system could lock down a whole vehicle and send a ear-splitting screech through the galleries. Still want to run the engine…? Running the engine and making the main movable bits move for objects from this era is in any case pretty clearly not the main point of the technology. The point of these objects is not just that they can move, but how well they can do it – how safe they can be in dangerous situations, how fast, how precise. The old large �technology experiences of sound, smell and movement may even be largely irrelevant – many twenty-first century machines are engineered to minimise noise and emissions and to move with the minimum of energy-wasting fuss and excitement (with the exception of Harleys which have forged a whole brand out of energy-wasting fuss and excitement). Along with many other aspects of large technology use and care, selection of functions for display purposes has often been driven by ideas and assumptions that perhaps have more to do with machines from before the Second World War than technology from the last fifty years. Undertaking a more explicit evaluation of the significance of different functions for collection development and display may deliver a variety of advantages, including a wider range of experiences for the public, more options for exhibition developers and opportunities to preserve a wider range of functions and maintenance skills. What other factors should be considered? As well as the cultural significance of functions, a number of other factors must be considered when deciding whether maintaining an object in an operational condition is a viable proposition. The following list covers the factors that our experience at the Memorial has suggested are most critical (a number of these factors are also noted in Paine, 1994). • the current state of the object (which will dramatically affect the cost of making it functional); • the likely impact of wear on significant parts of the object; • the need to update the object to meet modern safety standards; • the restrictions of the museum context, including; ⇒ The requirement to deliberately disable or remove potentially hazardous functions (for example weapons systems); ⇒ The need for special provisions in the exhibit design to facilitate either display operation of the chosen functions or exercise of functional systems for maintenance; ⇒ The cost and availability of certification that will be acceptable legally and to insurers. This includes: - Suitable licensing arrangements for machines and their operators (roadworthiness, authorised drivers etc - this can get quite curly when the machines no longer fit the requirements of current codes and when no training courses are available to teach the skills required to operate them); - Suitable certification for museum use (certification may only be available if a machine is fit for its original use, whereas the museum use may be substantially less demanding and risky and allow for greater retention of original components); • the level of benefit to the museum of operating the object. For example operation may be a direct revenue raiser – a number of small museums in particular charge for rides in operating trains and vehicles; • Non-display reasons for maintaining functionality: �• ⇒ the preservative effect of operation due to both distribution of wear and preservative compounds and the increased level of care and attention that it demands (Paine, 1994 and Hallam and Courtney, 1995); ⇒ large technology objects may be logistically easier to manage and preserve if some functions are maintained. For example the weight of the Memorial’s fifty two tonne Centurion tanks means they are extremely difficult and expensive to move if they are not self-mobile. Equally, to inspect the interior hydraulic and fluid spaces of many First World War guns, it is vital that the breech, recoil, elevation and traverse mechanisms are maintained in a movable condition. Once these systems have seized up through lack of care and exercise, inspection of the internal spaces and maintenance and disassembly of the components are impossible (Pearce, 2004); The resources available to maintain functionality in both the short and long term. ⇒ Money and time – the more complex and potentially dangerous the function, the more money and time is required to maintain it successfully. Money and time are primarily expended on: - Getting it going (and making it compliant with relevant standards); - Keeping it going – regular exercise, changing lubricants, cleaning etc; - Getting it going again – when things wear out and accidents happen; ⇒ Facilities for safe and appropriate operation and repair (including both workshop and exercise areas); ⇒ Record keeping – records of what decisions have been made and why, log books, conservation reports, maintenance plan, parts and spares inventories, photographic documentation, results of periodic performance testing etc; ⇒ Skills – developing and maintaining a pool of skilled people to both operate and repair the machinery. The Plan To make a success of conserving and operating a functioning object, all this information needs to be brought together in a project or object treatment plan. This does not have to be a huge undertaking, but it should be developed with the involvement of key people. These include the person who knows why the object is significant, the person who knows what the object is made of and how it works, the person who knows how the object will be displayed and the person who knows how the object will be moved and stored. It also includes the person who knows how much money is available (and can maybe get some more) and the person who can meld all these other people and their different ideas into a successful project team. The project plan prepared by the team must record the following information: • which functions are to be conserved and why; • what funding, skills and facilities are to be used; �• • • • what health, safety and legal requirements must be complied with; what tasks are required to conserve the identified functions, what supply train is required (identification and purchase/stockpiling of suitable spare parts, lubricants, fuels etc) whether any mothballing or other work needs to be carried out in parts of the object not selected for functional conservation (such work might be needed to ensure the safety or structural stability of the object, or to conserve the possibility that additional functions might be reactivated in the future). After the project is complete, the same team must complete a project report which records changes made to the original plan (and their rationale) and the final outcomes (treatments applied, information discovered, project costs – this will help in planning the next project – and actions taken to ensure legal compliance). The team must also ensure that a maintenance plan is designed, written down (and located somewhere other people can find it) and set in train. The maintenance plan must include periodic monitoring to document the ongoing condition, reliability and safety of the object and the effect of operation of the chosen functions on the rest of the object. She’s a little ripper – just what we wanted The final result should give everyone a warm inner glow. Good decision making up front should result in conservation of a set of functions that closely fit both the intended use of the object in the collection and the money, time and other resources available. People involved in the work should feel satisfied that the job has been done to high standards and management should feel happy that the project has delivered the agreed outcomes on time and on budget. Most importantly, everyone gets the fun of watching, hearing and smelling (and sometimes operating) a real, working object. References Courtney, B., Hallam, D. The Utilisation of Large Technology Items in the AWM collection. Internal paper produced for the Middle Management development Program, Australian War Memorial, 1995. Croker, J. Personal communication. September 2004. Davidson, C. Creatures from primordial silicon - Let Darwinism loose in an electronics lab and just watch what it creates. A lean, mean machine that nobody understands. New Scientist, vol. 156, issue 2108, 1997. Galloway, I. What is in a name? ICOM Australia, September, 2004. Graham-Rowe, D. Now who's in the driver's seat? New Scientist, vol. 180, issue 2420, 2003. �Graham-Rowe, D. 'Gadget printer' foreshadows a new industrial revolution. New Scientist, vol. 177, issue 2377, 2003. Paine, C., editor. Standards in the museum care of larger and working objects: social and industrial history collections 1994, Musems and Galleries Commission, London, 1994. Pearce, A. Personal communication. September 2004. Schroeder, A. Personal communication, September, 2004. Wain, A. TO INFINITY AND BEYOND! A little light crystal ball and navel gazing for the Conservation Profession. AICCM National Newsletter, no. 90, 2004. � https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/e15fb1a9875672a6d351c72223303897.pdf?Expires=1776902400&Signature=QdWS%7EmmaVFWpOu-q0OJRCmXV15FFwtRTGelE3EBExX3mu0MPWRE28RPpi7nzNkpXdZh%7ENFyj-kZEUuQIPvDHlqYOWEID2WxFjqSlaEDpcw1bHK8XgAKmKxE%7EA8-84y0hKpPuIZvhzjvDB3IG2ITPQjXIPKgqes2ZS5RLmIYfcCzrN6-qS9DPNGWJkkoTU3BdgOqKtvKkVo4jxnDh3gYbreh5-fR2MxzAv5pUHqH9aDk8xEO%7ECYYYidZuusAA%7EMjwOhxzkvOccYA%7EWaz3y3FcSJ4b%7Ex%7EITJrp4c-DVRHTnLTAtQWnlZLz3Jzt-UcNmpOEq1Ea9AM1F%7EGN%7EA%7EdK%7E-Ftw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 038757168e7873a4bdfb722bc8b59b86 PDF Text Text A well-planned operation Alison Wain Question and answer session Fred Haynes: In your considerations for keeping the thing moving, nowadays one of the more modern considerations is - can a terrorist can steal it and use it? Alison Wain: That’s one we hadn’t actually thought about I’d have to say. Fred Haynes: Because that’s one of the things…when they took HMAS Brisbane up and they’re sinking it off the coast they’ve got to make all the gun barrels safe so nobody can recover them and use them. And all sorts of those considerations. Alison Wain: We’ve certainly dealt with those considerations with regard to firearms, yes, and we do have a policy in place for that, but a whole vehicle I hadn’t actually considered. Fred Haynes: Particularly the Bushmaster! Alison Wain: Well yes! Chris Knapp: Do you actually advocate running your objects or do you have a secondary collection that you will run? Alison Wain: That’s really something that we decide on a case by case basis, with a huge input from the curators. We would look at, the curators would look at what the object…what its intended role is in the collection, and certainly they have acquired a number of objects specifically with the idea that they will function as running objects for open days, for special events. And certainly if an object’s acquired with that in mind then we would work with it on that basis and yes, it’s a different level of collection. So I think it’s really a case by case basis. Chris Knapp: I don’t know if you have many volunteers work with you, but we find at home – we’ve got a hundred and fifty volunteers - and every now and again one will come to us with their favourite aeroplane or their favourite vehicle and have a case to get it running. Do you find it’s usually personal preference that drives somebody to start the ball rolling on a particular object? Alison Wain: Not these days – I don’t know what it was like in the past. Certainly the volunteers, yes, regularly express a fondness for a particular vehicle and say “I wish you could get the ‘X’ running” and we’ve, I guess, been trying to talk to them a lot about why we do things and what the constraints are and how difficult it is to responsibly keep an object in an operational condition, and I think the people that we’ve got volunteering with us now understand that a lot more. I think the planning processes within the Memorial are actually very well integrated – the business planning and so forth – so while I think that there’s a certain level of personal preference that gets any project up and running - you’ve got to have someone that acts as an advocate for it – I think that’s very much mediated by a very strong planning �process and a very strong consultative process, so if there’s a real problem with that it gets picked up pretty early. Barbara Reeve: I just want to respond to Chris’s last point. We did in the past have a very volunteer-driven conservation program, especially for the large technology objects and the choice of objects that were worked on was very much driven by who the volunteers were, what their background was, what their interest was. And then how the object got conserved or restored was also very strongly driven by what the volunteers knew, how they knew how to do it and so on. Today, as Alison has said, all of our conservation projects are very much part of the overall corporate strategy – where are we going, what are we doing, how are we getting there? And that’s set in three year corporate plans, so at the moment our next big objective is the development of the post 45 galleries. And the last three year project was the redevelopment of ANZAC Hall, so to that end we were working on the Beaufort and the Lancaster and that’s where the volunteers were assigned. We said “You’re hired as a volunteer to work on the Beaufort or to work on the Lancaster – those are our priorities at the moment and that’s what we will be working on.” At the moment there is, I think, a vocal minority in favour of working on the Tiger Moth – it just isn’t in our business plan. In the future, when we get it into the business plan, we’ll certainly contact those people and get them back and say “Hey we’re going to work on the Tiger Moth now”, but we very much respond to what the corporate priorities are. We help to set them to some degree – all the senior managers sit around and determine where we’re going to go and what we’re going to do. But in fact where we are at the moment is at the end of a 10 or 15 year gallery master plan. In the 1980s we said “OK – we’re going to redevelop the galleries - there’s Gallery Redevelopment Stage One, Stage Two and Stage Three”. This is Stage Three, the redevelopment of the post 45 galleries. Once we’ve finished the redevelopment of the post 45 galleries, in fact, it’ll be pretty much a brave new world – I don’t know where we’re going to go after that. We’ll have finished the gallery master plan and that was a huge huge thing that came out in 1990? Alison Wain: I’m sure actually it was before I was here. Barbara Reeve: And so that’s part of that. But bringing everybody on board and changing their perspective from the way things happened in the 1980s when you could put up your hand and say “Hey, I’ve got a volunteer organization and we’d like to work on your DH9” – we’re not dependent on that any more. We have the resources in house, we have the skills in house, and we have the political determination in-house to go where we see that we need to go. And I loved your point about not saying no – that is something that all of the conservators in this institution have had drilled into them – you never say no – you say “Of course we can do it – here’s how”. Alison Wain: Or “Here’s another option”. John White or Mike Cecil would you like to speak to that point from the curatorial point of view? John White: There’s a couple of points here. As a curator I’m very mindful that we do operate on three year cycles. I’m also mindful that projects like the Lancaster and �the Beaufort could never be completed in a three year cycle. And there are some real problems – if you are looking at the solution to REALLY big objects, you actually might need to be working on them for 10 years, and also at that stage you’re well in advance of a display requirement for the item. So I think it would actually be more reasonable to say that we have to factor in some aspects of urgent work – for instance what we’re doing with the V2 at the moment - looking at solving some major problems with that so that we actually have the flexibility to make decisions later on. And I think really the way that, as a curator, I approach this is - I try and be flexible about the use of the objects, and to think imaginatively about the uses of the objects over time. An idea now might take 10 years to turn into a reality and that’s part of a curatorial role - to push on a number of fronts so that a proposition becomes possible in the longer term. But I think that we like to think about issues and treat – as you pointed out – objects very individually and take advantage of the points there. I also wanted to pick up on something mentioned earlier by Dave [Hallam], which is that the operation of some objects is in fact an excellent way of keeping on top of their preservation, and that’s something that we’ve come to recognize much more clearly, particularly in the last five years. Nikki King-Smith: A simple question. Who makes the final decision? Alison Wain: Again, I would say that the way we aim to work here is that we get information from the curators about what the significance of the object is and what its intended role in the collection is, and then as conservators we do a close examination of that object, usually with the curator as well and work out different options for achieving what the curator wants to achieve with it. But also obviously trying to balance long term role in the collection with immediate display imperatives, so it’s really an iterative process – it’s back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. One issue we do have is that I think in the past we haven’t sufficiently involved our management in that iterative process, and so we’ve had unfortunate situations towards the end of projects where management has said “I don’t like that. Change it.” And of course that’s really really difficult – sometimes the object’s on a pole in the gallery it’s difficult and dangerous to access. So we’re at the moment trying to develop a policy or some guidelines on how to – it is really a PR thing like Chris Knapp was talking about – to involve them , to make sure that what we’re thinking about as curators and conservators gets clearly across to management so they’re not surprised by the outcome, they feel part of it. I think that’s really important as well. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Big Stuff 2004 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Article An article in a journal or periodical Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A well-planned operation Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 functionality maintenance Operating Objects operation project management significance