1 10 7 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/6ba0bc1575c1508be92bafb6c21abd22.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=mtdd4GNKTcN-cbVZ4sNRSKdgI603hQUgLE2jX8xn7xGZD1aMTyOtBpSSJFsRwUagAdUAQNhqrx4WyIsgONVOVcs51ILCHNf1hCuOsm7KsoHofsxGlVP3zwYD6dRBDv9X8IKFtTXwJbrY99D7CRfjJXRPS1N9MRzqDX92tUJmsWXCpQVG8h4O34Q8D-9EoceU5ALayCsxPzIzL1CkgxVgAeY0qTECNtt5a%7EZu2qMNj8pY%7EjogGay2dxuHkn8b6UwJxMIToDVhtTvtLK4xVcIWl1OQdKpl8a8Wgz5MXmp7K73mZk7JiuBDBU%7EydP0iMwVATE9svnh4HkpdJPyz1rMd7A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM c2e0913f623b3101e2587c2c7b438035 PDF Text Text Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up John Griswold Griswold Conservation Associates, LLC, Los Angeles, CA USA Abstract: This paper reviews the condition assessment, preliminary conservation stabilization, disassembly, and relocation of the 43-meter-long mock-up of the first Space Shuttle Orbiter, in the historic Design Engineering Implementation (DEI) Room at the NASA-Rockwell facility in Downey, California. Establishment of minimum environmental requirements and review of proposed plans for disassembly, transport and storage of the orbiter mock-up by the conservator are discussed, as well as implementation and supervision of the project. Design and fabrication of a special double-walled tent-like housing within the same building is described, along with the implementation of a long-term monitoring program. Introduction In late spring, 2003, an important artifact from the beginning of NASA’s Space Shuttle (Orbiter) Program had reached a critical moment. In its original location since 1972, the only existing full-size mock-up of the spacecraft would have to be moved to another location. Here it would wait to become the centerpiece of the future Downey Space Museum. Given its construction of plywood veneer over a wood frame, and its massive size, this was a formidable prospect. This paper summarizes the work performed by Griswold Conservation Associates for the City of Downey, California. The goals of the project were to fully document the condition of the mock-up, evaluate proposals for its disassembly and transport, stabilize or remove vulnerable components, and supervise its move to a large storage enclosure. An ongoing monitoring program is also discussed. The vast collection of buildings and large hangars in Downey, about fifteen miles southeast of Los Angeles, is the site of many milestones in the history of 20th century aviation and spaceflight. It was here that North American Aviation developed the P-51 Mustang fighter plane during World War II, and later the first supersonic bomber, the XB-70. North American Rockwell built the Apollo lunar module here, and in 1972, the facility became the birthplace of the Space Shuttle when Rockwell International won the government contract to build its components at the facility, now called the Space Transportation Systems Division.1 Boeing Corporation’s Space Systems Division subsequently occupied the facility throughout the NASA period.2 The Space Shuttle mock-up was originally built to fulfill a requirement of the contract bidding process, but remained a useful tool for the program for the next several decades. In spite of the relatively ephemeral materials of its construction, it lasted for years as an accurately proportioned simulation of the exterior and interior spaces and features of the 1 �actual vehicle, modified over the years to reflect updates in design. The mock-up lacks a left wing in a measure to eliminate redundancy and to save space. The flight deck, crew quarters, cargo bay, and engine compartment are authentically fitted with every detail, often represented by simple painted wood shapes or silk-screened plastic or metal sheeting. This verisimilitude allowed engineers to accurately check prototypes of planned equipment in their intended location. Some prototype items, such as a machined metal restraint for astronaut’s boots at the airlock to the cargo bay remain in place. Mock-ups of payload equipment and containers were also tested for fit, and one array of simulated electronic equipment on a specialized pallet remains bolted in the cargo bay today. The Remote Manipulator System (RMS), a jointed, rotating arm made for deploying payloads, built by Canada, is faithfully represented by an accurate, nonworking replica in aluminum. It is bolted to the port side of the payload bay. Located in the Design and Engineering Integration Room, or DEI Room, the orbiter mock-up was used for a number of other purposes. It was a centerpiece of public relations and a visual aid for communications with members of congress and other government officials, who frequented a two-tiered complex of office and conference spaces across from the mock-up. A balcony gave an impressive view of the shuttle, surrounded by dramatic paintings of as-yet only imagined space stations and orbiters operations. The shuttle mock-up also served as a training tool for astronauts and other spaceflight team members. A sea of electrical and electronics cables fed the mock-up, and oxygen supply outlets to the astronauts’ space suits were reportedly located nearby. The mock-up may have been used during investigations into the Challenger disaster in 1986.3 The DEI Room was only a small corner of an enormous warehouse-like building. Beyond the mural-clad partition walls lay a vast beehive of industrial activity, built to accommodate multi-station aircraft and spacecraft assembly and fabrication operations fed by a complex of overhead gantries running on more than a mile of tracks. In 1999, the Downey plant of the Boeing Space Systems Division was closed, and the property was acquired by the City of Downey. In 2000, the city council confirmed purchase of the Space Shuttle mock-up from NASA.4 Making use of the vast indoor spaces afforded by several of the buildings and the large, open airfields surrounding them, the city leased out space for feature film productions by major Hollywood studios. This provided a steady revenue stream to the city while plans for redevelopment of the facility took shape. Plans include a museum facility to interpret the rich aviation and aerospace history of the site, but specifics have yet to be determined. In the meantime, the Space Shuttle mock-up would need to be moved to make way for a new major film production, with elaborate sets taking up much of the interior of the building. The DEI Room would be dismantled in the process. Incredibly, the transformation of the building into a sound stage would include a vast lake set into the floor. 2 �Alternative sites for storing the mock-up were sought, and several options were reviewed by the conservator in consultation to Loren Behr, director of the new museum. It was clear that all of the nearby available structures, hangars built to protect aircraft from inclement weather decades ago, would present a much less stable and protective environment compared with the present building. A comprehensive plan was needed for the long term care of the mock-up. On July 8, 2003, the Downey City council approved a proposal from Griswold Conservation Associates, LLC to perform conservation services in connection with its relocation to an area within the building, beyond the perimeter of the movie set being constructed inside. This area, adjacent to a group of large enclosed rooms, was determined to be large enough to house the mock-up. A temporary shelter would have to be designed and built to help mitigate abrupt changes in environment during filming, and to protect the mock-up during excavation of the cement floor and construction of the set. The addition of a large body of water within the building presented special concerns regarding the stability of the environment. Since alterations of the building were already underway, the plan to save the Space Shuttle had to be implemented quickly. The project to move and re-house the Space Shuttle mock-up was divided into four phases: condition documentation and assessment; development and implementation of a Supervision and Monitoring Plan for moving the mock-up; and monitoring the components of the mock-up during storage. The fourth phase, relocation and reassembly of the mock-up, was left undefined in the proposal, given the many unknown factors regarding the status of the future museum. Phase I: Condition Documentation and Assessment A team of four assistants worked closely with the conservator to describe the various components of the mock-up and their condition. Each team member was given preprinted forms that included spaces to write brief descriptions of a particular item, condition notes, and a simple diagram. A small drawing of the Space Shuttle was included on the form so the surveyor could indicate the approximate location of the item addressed. Check boxes aided the worker in indicating recommendations for removal or stabilization, and for assigning elevated priority status as needed. Along with the forms, the team member received a glossary of technical terms pertaining to the spacecraft. As the forms were filled out, the conservator consulted with each assistant to ensure common vocabulary was being used to describe the conditions found. Acting as a rover among the group, the conservator could ensure a fairly uniform standard of reporting. This also allowed the conservator to build a photographic reference collection of special conditions found by the team, to supplement the photo survey being conducted at the same time. The conservator was primarily responsible for the photo survey, focusing on recording the state of the entire mock-up inside and out, before any elements were removed or otherwise altered. A Nikon D-100 digital SLR camera was used with a Tamron 28300mm zoom lens. The built-in flash was used to ensure simplicity and uniformity of 3 �lighting conditions. By having one person responsible for photographing the entire structure, redundancy was minimized and a logical “rhythm” of taking photos, section by section, was observed. This proved invaluable in sorting and cataloging the images afterward, and should help anyone using the report in later phases to locate a particular item or feature. Image files were shot in JPEG format, with average individual file sizes around one megabyte. Since many hundreds of images were being cataloged, larger file sizes would have overtaxed the disc storage capacity available at the time, and would have slowed the processing speed of the databases to be used to view the condition records and their related images. Given the speed with which the condition survey was to take place, copies of the handwritten forms and the photo image catalogs comprised the full condition report submitted to the city prior to dismantling the mock-up. There was no time to develop a database-driven recording regime, where laptop computers would be used for direct entry of data. Because the film production company was eager to begin demolition and construction of the set, time was of the essence. To create such a database, with checklist format entry screens linked to text descriptors, the many details of fabrication and the full range of materials encountered and potential conditions would have to be known in advance. Relying instead on simple forms and the communal development of terms and descriptive protocols allowed a massive object to be recorded in less than a week. In the future, the data recorded by hand will be entered into a Filemaker Pro 5.0 database, and coordinating images will be linked to each record through a separate relational database. A third database will allow treatment-related data and monitoring observations to be added to each record. To keep track of the many images, the conservator reviewed several digital media management software programs. One program, iView Media Pro (v.1.5), allowed a large text caption to be associated with each image in a printed catalog. This was considered an important advantage, and the program was found to be extremely efficient to use. It was only available for the Macintosh operating system, however. Therefore, PDF files were created of each catalog using Adobe Acrobat 6.0 to create a catalog document readable on any platform. Catalogs of images were divided into groups relating to the various general areas of the mock-up, including the payload bay, the flight deck, the exterior fuselage, the engine compartment, etc. The catalog files were then burned onto CD-R discs along with the related image files. A separate disc contained copies of the related databases. With the latest versions of database programs such as Filemaker Pro versions 6 and 7, large image files can be related to database records without directly importing them into the document, speeding up data management and display tasks such as sorting and searches. The shuttle was constructed in four main sections, including: 1) the nose, flight deck/crew quarters and forward half of the fuselage; 2) the aft portion of the fuselage, the tail assembly/engine compartment, and the engines/ Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS); 3) the starboard wing; and 4) the two starboard cargo bay doors. Sections 1 and 2 were joined at vertical seams in the fuselage, covered on both sides by steel mending 4 �plates and rows of bolts fitted with washers and hex nuts. The seams were covered with painted tape. The wing was supported on its own steel carriage, also on casters, and simply placed next to the fuselage, the seam covered with painted fabric tape. On the port side of the mock-up, a wooden staircase and observation platform had been erected, giving access to the crew compartment hatch opening and forming a viewing gallery into the cargo bay. Beneath this platform were several large, metal electrical equipment boxes with myriad cables feeding various locations under the mock-up. These features were photographed for future reference, but were excluded from the survey. Where possible, fasteners were disengaged and cable ends rolled and stored inside the mock-up. The black fabric curtains skirting the steel undercarriage of the mock-up were diagrammed and stored for possible future reinstallation. Because the shuttle body sheathing was simulated using thin plywood veneer over wood ribs and cross braces, an undulating pattern reflecting the underlying supports was noticeable. There were also small gaps and discontinuities in the surface planes at joints in the sheathing. These were noted and recorded for monitoring during and after the move. During the condition assessment process, a number of items were flagged for removal from the mock-up for separate storage. Many items were small, incidental objects such as imitation fire extinguishers, silvered fabric window cover panels, wooden blocks representing equipment or flight gear, and other items related to the original use of the shuttle. In addition to these readily identified items, a number of ephemeral objects relating to various experimental and interpretive activities were found within interstices or underneath coverings or supports. These included stacks of numbered signs and photographic scales, pieces of NASA stationery and signage, marking pens, etc. All were inventoried and photographically recorded before and after removal. Some pieces of the shuttle itself required removal during this phase of work. The largest of these items was the front landing gear assembly, to be removed in one piece and secured to a wooden pallet, specially padded with polyethylene foam blocks, Volara sheeting, and Tyvek (a proprietary spun-bonded olefin made by DuPont Corporation). Cotton twill or polyester strapping was used to secure the assembly to the pallet, with drywall screws placed well away from the artifact. Several loose items were too large to remove from the small hatch openings, such as detached hatch covers. These were packaged in Tyvek and 1/4” polyethylene foam sheeting, and secured in place. Tyvek was chosen as the material to use in direct contact with the mock-up and its components since it would minimize abrasion during transport and handling, and allow water vapor to pass away from the object, minimizing the possibility of condensation. Some items were found to be damaged or loose. These required stabilization in place in anticipation of jolts and vibration during the moving process. Several of the clear plastic, prismatic light panels in the crew quarters were cracked and/or loose due to 5 �missing fasteners, and vinyl plastic coverings were losing their grip due to embrittlement of the adhesive holding the Velcro patches to the painted plywood. These were secured using temporary means including cotton twill tape ties where possible. Where the weight of hanging, degraded plastic sheeting posed a risk of further tearing, it was removed and stored separately. Phase II: Development and Implementation of a Supervision and Monitoring Plan Before the city enlisted the aid of a conservator, a Request for Proposals was issued to a group of potential bidders capable of moving large artifacts or aircraft. The city received several detailed work plans for disassembly, support and transport of the sections of the mock-up once the location within the same building was chosen as the destination, accessible along a path about a quarter of a mile from the DEI room. A firm specializing in the handling and storage of artworks and artifacts, LA Packing, Crating and Transport, Inc., was chosen to perform the move. Interviews with the conservator led to further refinements of the work plan. The plan relied on the welded steel framework and existing heavy-duty casters already in place under the flimsy plywood construction of the mock-up, to provide the main support during the move. This framework was reinforced with additional steel braces welded in place. Due to the risk of fire, protocols for “hot work” were implemented, including fire-shield blankets and pads, fire extinguishers at hand, and monitoring for sub-surface temperature spikes using a hand-held, infrared temperature sensor gun. The LA Packing crew performed the disassembly under the direction of the conservator. Photo documentation continued throughout the process, and the disassembly crew submitted notes to the conservator showing details needed for future reassembly. Special bracing was required to support the RMS assembly once the fuselage sections were separated. To gain access to structural members of the fuselage and undercarriage, the vinyl covers were removed at their Velcro attachment points, and either rolled on large diameter Sonotubes covered in Mylar film, or partially rolled in place. The conservator decided to cut the existing painted tape over the mending plates, leaving it in place for future reference and possible repair or replication. Part of the tape was already peeling off, and this was re-attached using a reversible adhesive. Once all preparations had been made, the four main components were separated using tractor/forklifts, sometimes in tandem. Evidence of previous configurations of the mock-up was revealed upon separation of the wing from the fuselage. Black and white paint configurations and other markings made with adhered striping tape suggested an earlier configuration, seen in an early photograph. Further research showed that the meeting point of the OMS system housings flanking the vertical stabilizer with the back end of the cargo bay door reflected an earlier version, later changed by NASA. Thus the mock-up was found to embody evolutions in design of the first orbiter. 6 �Concurrent with the disassembly process, an Omega Nomad datalogger was placed in the DEI Room to record temperature and relative humidity readings for one week to establish a baseline for future monitoring. Unfortunately, the datalogger was lost when demolition of the DEI Room happened slightly ahead of schedule. Spot measurements taken with a digital thermo-hygrometer at varying times throughout the process allowed a rough baseline range to be established in the absence of a complete diurnal tracking of environmental conditions. Since the stated goal of the relocation was to simply achieve and maintain conditions similar to those found in the DEI Room, the high and low extremes were the most significant data points to establish. These would, of course, need to be adjusted for seasonal changes based on general meteorological data available. The path of travel was prepared concurrently with the preparation of the new enclosure for the mock-up components. Overhead gantries were relocated, and missing grates over drain channels in the floor were replaced. Several standing conduit pipes emerging from the floor were removed as well. The greatest obstacle was the east wall of the DEI room itself. The mock-up must originally have been brought into the Room through a large steel roll-up door at the north wall, directly opposite the tail assembly. This option was no longer available due to demolition of the floor already underway beyond it. A large opening in the east wall would have to be made ahead of the shuttle’s nose. (The city photographically documented all murals, following standards established for the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS). The ongoing demolition inside the building, and the impending demolition of the east wall opening made special protective measures necessary. The entire path of travel to the new location was curtained off using 6 mil polypropylene sheeting with large, overlapping seams secured on both sides with duct tape. Both sides of the opening were tented and fitted with positive pressure blowers to create the required environment for abatement of the potentially asbestos-laden wall during demolition by the contractor. At the far end of the path, a 150-foot long enclosure, 50 feet wide and 34 feet high, was being constructed. An inner “tent” of Tyvek would stand 2 to 4 feet away from an outer wall of polypropylene sheeting. In theory, this would create a buffer zone to help mitigate rapid changes in temperature and humidity. Only ten-foot wide rolls of Tyvek were available on short notice. As a result, many linear feet of joints between vertically- and horizontally-hung sheets would need to be sealed. Red construction-grade duct tape has been used previously on architectural conservation projects to secure Tyvek wrappings around foam protective panels, for exterior window protection, the joins becoming more stubbornly adhered over time. Based on this experience, the conservator suggested using this tape on both sides of the seams during construction. Any off-gassing due to the use of non-archival tape/adhesive would be far offset by the vast air volumes enclosed. Early failures of adhesion during the construction of the enclosure necessitated re-application of the tape, better pressed in place against a firm surface. 7 �The enclosure was comprised of a north, west, south and east wall, and a ceiling. The Tyvek and the plastic sheeting were stretched above and below the existing superstructure framework of the gantry, forming a ceiling with the same buffering air space between the membranes. The east wall of the enclosure was formed by fastening and taping the sheeting to the wall of the building defining the side rooms, each with their own closable doorways. Once the south wall was erected after placement of all the shuttle components, the only access was through a set of locked doors in the east wall outside of the enclosure, leading to the adjacent storage rooms. As an added measure of security, a six-foot chain link fence was erected around the enclosure, topped with razor wire. The move of the main mock-up sections took place over three days. As predicted, the existing casters that had been used over 30 years earlier to place the shuttle rolled easily again under the careful tugging of two tractors, but only for a few inches. Suddenly, the forward fuselage section stopped moving and movement was seen at the observation platform on the port side. Although the platform appeared to be free of the shuttle, one spot was not visible, behind the stairs and below the hatch opening. It became clear that the original hatch, presumed either lost or to have never existed, was found. Removal of the carpeting and plywood flooring revealed the hatch, perfectly intact on its hinges, built into a hollow in the stairs. Once free, all sections rolled the entire distance without incident. Three members of the conservator’s staff spotted each section as it moved along, prepared to signal a halt at any moment. The payload bay doors had been strapped to large wooden pallets built for the purpose. The pallets were to provide rigid support and a lifting platform under the extended forks of the forklift. In fact, the added weight and the long span was more flexible than the curved doors themselves, and one wood member of the pallet cracked during transport, requiring reinforcement. Thanks to the padding and strapping configuration, the doors were unharmed except for a small indentation at the interior edge of the plywood sheathing. No emergency response was necessary during the move. Repair of the damage incurred to the cargo bay door would be cosmetic and minor, and therefore was deferred until the re-installation phase. A monitoring plan was written, defining the storage conditions to be met as part of the tenant’s building use terms, and the means by which these would be monitored and mitigated by the conservator and others. Temperature and relative humidity must remain within the general range established in the DEI Room. Elevated conditions for more than a 24-hour period would require intervention, including the use of dehumidifier units and fans. Pest management was a key concern, and the tenant would be required to contract with an approved pest management company fur the duration of their occupancy. Security was of the utmost priority, since theft, vandalism and damage from abuse could cause irreversible loss of historic fabric. 8 �In order to implement the plan, the conservator and city representatives would need unrestricted access to the mock-up, even during closed set operations of the film production. Use of lights, wind generators, pyrotechnics, and other tools of movie magic are beyond the control of the conservator, but the conditions resulting inside the Space Shuttle enclosure could be extreme. Timely monitoring and response would be of the essence. Phase III: Monitoring of Mock-Up Components In Storage The Tyvek envelope remains generally intact after one year, with some minor gaps where the tape adhesion has not been properly re-established. These areas appear stable, but reinforcement with simple alligator-type clips may be recommended in the future. There have been water leaks in the roof near the southwest corner of the enclosure, with some pooling of rainwater near the outer barrier wall. Sandbags have been brought in as a protective measure here, and water was removed immediately using wet/dry industrial vacuum units. Absorbent booms are now to be placed around the entire perimeter of the enclosure. Monitoring the internal environment using dataloggers has been problematic due to equipment failure, but we now have a set of data to use for comparison with spot readings of T and RH taken in the DEI Room before removal of the Space Shuttle. In general, the temperature and relative humidity are fluctuating within a range similar to the original storage conditions prior to the move, allowing for differences in seasons, etc. Temperature inside the enclosure fluctuated approximately 6 to 10 degrees diurnally, with moderate trends up and down between extremes of 58 and 78 degrees F. Relative humidity fluctuates diurnally about 10 to 15%, generally between 45 and 72%, with an anomalous dip to 28 percent (presumably during dry Santana wind conditions common to the area). The efficiency of the enclosure in buffering environmental changes relative to both the interior of the building and outdoor conditions is in the process of being evaluated through the use of additional dataloggers. Early indications are that the enclosure does, in fact, slow down changes, but similar extremes of temperature and relative humidity are reached within 48 hours both within and without. While the collected data is far from ideal museum storage conditions, where stable temperature between 68 and 72 degrees F and RH between 45 and 55% are maintained, it is within the realm expected given the state of the building and the passive nature of the enclosure. Interior conditions are certainly more stable and change less dramatically than outside conditions. More importantly, they are an improvement over the range suggested by daytime spot readings collected during June through July before the move in the DEI room (see table below). 9 �Date Time 6/12 6/17 7/2 7/2 7/9 7/9 7/15 7/15 7/16 7/16 1p 11a 11a 2p 8a 11a 9a 1p 9a 2p Temp. (F) 73 74 72 79 62 74 72 80 74 81 RH (%) 37 42 68 61 50 47 63 54 45 31 Table 1. Spot conditions recorded in DEI Room. The spot readings are taken during summer, during the day. The variations seen suggest even more fluctuation during diurnal periods. A general characterization of summer conditions in the DEI room would be temperature between about 55 and 80 degrees F, and RH between 25 and 70 degrees F. The graphed data from the dataloggers shows that conditions vary within the enclosure at different heights, the one datalogger being placed on top of the cargo bay at the top of the stairs. RH conditions vary less at the upper level, and are within a more moderate range of both T and RH than readings logged within 7 feet of the floor. While RH was seen to rise to over 70 percent, this was not sustained for more than 12 hours. Sustained RH levels within the enclosure above 70% for several days would warrant the use of de-humidifiers to help normalize the conditions. This may become necessary once data is collected after filling the lake, or during periods of filming where hot lights combined with wind machine-driven waves and mist may create harsh conditions within the building. Dust has accumulated on the floor and on Space Shuttle components. This was expected, especially given the demolition and construction underway in the building. The rate of future deposition is expected to lessen. A test area has been cleaned for future monitoring. A general surface cleaning campaign may be recommended within the next 6 months once airborne dust levels have been reduced. No signs of insect or rodent infestation have been seen. Since an Integrated Pest Management Program had not yet been implemented as required, the conservator placed several sticky traps around the interior perimeter of the enclosure. The conservator will review all proposed pest mitigation procedures. 10 �Security continues to be a priority. City representatives and the conservator must have access as needed to the closed set, certainly a problem when secrecy must shroud the latest Hollywood blockbusters. It may be recommended to install a video surveillance system, perhaps accessible through a website. As the observations made during the past year demonstrate, ongoing monitoring and enforcement of storage condition requirements will be key to the long-term preservation of the Space Shuttle mock-up. The baseline documentation compiled by the conservation team provides a reliable basis for demonstrating ongoing deterioration and damage, but detailed records of the rate of change and mitigation measures taken will prove extremely useful in designing future phases of treatment as the Space Shuttle mock-up become the centerpiece of a new museum Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Loren Behr, Director of the Downey Space Museum, Steven Spargur of LA Packing and Crating, Inc., and Lisa LaVine, Cynthia Eastright, and Bob Nishi of Griswold Conservation Associates, LLC, and Julie Wolfe of the J. Paul Getty Museum Decorative Arts Conservation Department. References 1 Williamson, Ray A. Developing the Space Shuttle, Early Concepts of a Reusable Launch Vehicle. Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume I, Organizing for Exploration (Washington, DC: NASA SP-4407, 1995). 2 Space Shuttle:The History of the National Space Transportation Program by Dennis R. Jenkins (Hong Kong: World Print., Ltd., 3rd edition, 2003) provides a detailed account of the history of the NASA Space Shuttle Program. 3 Behr, Loren, Director, Downey Space Museum. City of Downey, California. Personal communication. 4 Downey Eagle Newspaper, March 17, 2000. Cited at http://citywd.com/E/eagle/2000/mar17/features.htm. Copyright All text and images © 2004 John Griswold, Griswold Conservation Associates, LLC. 11 �The Space Shuttle Orbiter mock-up seen by floodlight in the DEI Room. The forward flight deck. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �Metal boot restraint on ceiling of payload bay airlock. Missing section of simulated rubber insulation on ceiling window of flight deck. Note exposed pine wood. Debris has fallen onto the top of the glass from the ceiling. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �Window covers stored loosely in a wall pouch. Torn vinyl plastic sheeting and degraded adhesive tape and Velcro attachments on flight deck. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �Failing fasteners at prismatic lighting lenses made of acrylic. American flag decal on underside of wing is detaching from the painted plywood substrate. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �A forklift and a scissor lift were used to stabilize and remove the payload bay doors. Rotating one of the payload bay doors into storage position. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �Positioning to support pallet framework for one of the payload bay doors. A payload bay door in place on its pallet. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �Welders adding additional bracing and joint reinforcements to existing steel trusswork supports under fuselage. View of the Mock-up from the observation deck of the DEI Room during disassembly. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �Removal of interior panels from payload bay to gain access to substructure for separation of the fuselage. Curtain wall corridor in place, seen from inside the demolition zone. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �Wood framing and plywood skin of a payload bay panel see from the reverse. The wing, supported on steel trusswork, after separation from the fuselage. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �The internal structure of the wing was visible after separation from the fuselage. The removal of the wing exposed part of an earlier configuration of paint scheme and details delineated in adhesive vinyl striping tape. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �Observation stairway and platform are visible on the port side of the Shuttle. Internal framework of the payload bay exposeed after partial removal of vinyl covers. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �Installation of the outer polyetylene sheeting layer of the storage tent. Conservation assistant documenting conditions as they are exposed during disassembly. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �Hanging shreds of urethane foam gaasketing at edge of payload bay door. Curtain wall corridor from inside, showing storage tent construction in progress. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �Temporary protective covers made of Tyvek and painters' low-tack blue tape were applied over vulnerable graphic details on the exterior of the fuselage during the move. Outer polyethylene layer of storage tent almost completed. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �Disassembly of the nose landing gear assembly. Detail of the underside of the nose landing gear assembly showing deliberately flattened portion of the painted wooden tires. Note chip losse and abrasions. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �Placement of the nose landing gear assembly on its pallet. The painted wooden wheels of the nose landing gear padded with Tyvek and braced to the pallet. Ethafoam polyethylene foam planks and wedges were used for additional support. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �The nose landing gear assembly placed on its pallet in the storage room adjacent to the tent. Tyvek sheeting is installed on the inside of the storage tent, forming an air space of approximately one meter from the exterior tent wall. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �Storage tent, with both layers in place, ready to receive the Mock-up components. Tyvek sheet sections inside the storage tent awaiting closure of the seams, while the floor is cleaned. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �Installation of bracing under sections of the "Canadarm" in the payload bay. Demolition in progress inside the building, with curtain wall corridor in the background. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �Transporting the first of the Mock-up sections to the storage tent. Placement of a payload bay door in the storage tent. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �Beginning to separate the nose and forward fuselage from the aft sections. Discovery of the hidden port hatch cover to the crew quarters inside a compartment in the observation platform landing. Deep U-shapped hinges were hidden below the platform and were not visible from any angle. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �The exposed hatch cover. The cover was raised and braced from the inside with ethafoam wedges and twill tape ties. The fore and aft sections of the fuselage separating at the vertical joint during the initial stages of the move. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �The fore section of the Mock-up is towed through the opening in the mural wall, entering the curtain wall corridor. The fore section entering the corridor. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �The fore section of the Mock-up is towed around a tight corner toward the storage tent. The fore section of the Mock-up entering the storage tent. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �Rolling the payload bay vinyl covers in Tyvek sheeting on Sonotubes for long-term storage. The aft section of the Mock-up during transport. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �The aft section of the Mock-up turning the corner in the curtain wall corridor. Placement of the aft section in the storage tent. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �Dataloggers recorded the temperature and humidity in the DEI Room before disassembly and removal of the Mock-up. The Mock-up inside the closed storage tent. A chain link fence topped with barbed wire was erected around the perimeter to enhavce security. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �Early failure of improperly sealed tape joints in the Tyvek wall. Failure of tape joints at the ceiling level caused some sheets to fall. Inspection of the tape joints lower down showed that the adhesion between the tape and the Tyvek could be quite strong when properly attached. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �Dataloggers were placed in two locations inside the tent to monitor environmental conditions during storage. Winter rains revealed a building roof leak not apparent during initial inspections. Water entered the storage tent at the perimeter on the south side, but did not contact the Mock-up. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up �Sandbags were hastily deployed along the path of travel of the water leak. Loren Behr of the City of Downey accompanies the conservator during a monitoring inspection visit. John Griswold, Preserving the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up � https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/112bab2c1725b3588dd7cb3d35aef7f3.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=ATiNf2p848jCanBlD3Z65pUyCK6IZHKaPeq6%7EQ%7E7rr29GJ4nl0YsYJCLHQwhDpxyGJr%7ELBXg-10Zlr93dPeHoFo3L6YmKftP3LMf3LGM57VT%7ExZP0OhJGHn7VR065MTOxY6pz-xMyZ5z2UG6DVNPFAp-mt0JnYjRbaTfJUsJDGJaH0dlAmdRhmwVeFzdSqIIuBzDA82H8SqggpGzsF7D702UNOzD%7EZ%7Ewo7rZHylmw83c7tbkZXX-FQ5Q42-YSW-AexBEswO7sPwD6yDBtODdjoDsScE-V2BB1cQnJaOh-9fc8M6rP9InMaREFGapC3re5woLvxfZmpaGL7fEKxVR2A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 4f0f419f0304de5223bf5028ec298c37 PDF Text Text Preserving the orbiter: stabilization, disassembly, relocation and storage of an historic space shuttle mock-up John Griswold – Questions and answer session John Kemister: Did the murals get saved as well? On the side of the box? John Griswold: They didn’t. They got documented. But they got documented to a greater degree than they would have because – again this crossover between disciplines – being involved with historic preservation of structures as well, I was familiar with our HABS standards – our Historic American Building Survey standards for documentation. And so I knew a photographer who was able to come in and do that standard of photography for that space before it was demolished. But it was a sad thing to see those go. � 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 the Orbiter: Stabilization, Disassembly, Relocation and Storage of an Historic Space Shuttle Mock-Up Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource John Griswold Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 handling equipment preventive conservation project management Storage and Movement https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/bb6263168c8e073731839b14c708f7ef.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=wKhK1GUfUnq4H7w0q4z-8eDm5zJupf5XW5bzhuy9b9s76M5I2PnJDwgrHeAjA7X2KkwrEYnfDKfP3jc1Bc0IQPrmhoX9m%7E9zvMo8NbEvs0SWJ5O4IBH82uBojF8J%7ErCiVie7zR85CBouA9d5L367O%7Ep1AHFQYRQlu3AMnJtnIMx9-YLinAtfHhNHPmzqBJZ9f1oemCjzMBW4qIiNDorLcaPUTwDz9KPyi5%7EcyyhmLTBgW-IhOWo6XyEalB4ri9vim0wkxr3gm22h3hNFD5ZoVNBtAGNUARpkUKUWcdgQCP8ywN57dkUxmH-8EG%7E9nPtQjtX6KR0hGPLANNVpAgIyOg__&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=1774483200&Signature=jLQMzj3-KeGcXLVxJLu4mFRspGBdAzW59OkGrBJMh2fnT-Nsypy3Gl7h6--%7Eu2iutqzXrl-6%7EnmuISMSwrt2L-u7ITzTokSs87x2xm6JHhaiiPJpWaplWtGL7k3959JYq2wFPuu-F-C42cSXvp2IaclwnpWKombx2EaU0VTb0YjLAhlHvwNwNAnGEhZyIYsqfrHGoHGc4BU30baG8nMhFc-XxZxrNS2GPaAdFhR7V3XBhOnnAvi8kF14iicT1nuN7q-90gL10XOgNOV%7Ew5slV7Lf%7EZ-V4aCuCpo-u136NneFuODdubERJ9gS-w2sucOEviF0dehkKiFIMB5t-rMHHQ__&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 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/fc678c9954719a17de474ba98bf6ba28.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=HkJIzZxACk3AmJb9LyLKdYTCVKyg1OUxtelK171DI9hOF8nmENLbDRWqq69kwqKZ6BGz44su79HGPZDSkzdux5wxXBt2iQtTzcX3u3XJ9Km4SDj3M61EC6W2CahUEDM%7EeNmr-CR-SVmjXlsLB1Sdb9NlyBAf86msPb5D-b%7EFxn9VvCVH0PRsZFZOA6CxGoEfAKhs7hBFg%7EQebpmYRk3pGKVKzeojjlg%7EHeXBBvjSGpNye3BRk7PYsyyOCV2Ntbb-gGFV2JSZ63GamaP7gN52L5nhxo8%7EeM1G8i66v9gLUr6sxspYcYLi3%7EtnklAMTtrjTPXD6wDPTvpbWE0o88pi6Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 1ed2d8dd454923ee3d1d0f5967bec3fe PDF Text Text Organising an effective maintenance plan for Big Stuff Alison Wain Australian War Memorial Abstract: Large technology objects need regular maintenance, but their size and complexity make them particularly challenging to manage. This paper outlines some of the key aspects which shape the large technology maintenance program at the Australian War Memorial, as well as some of the strategies that have been developed to increase its efficiency and effectiveness. Introduction It has been recognized for some time that it is necessary to develop and implement ongoing maintenance plans for large technology objects (Paine, 1994). At the Australian War Memorial we have been running a regular maintenance program for some of our larger working objects for several years and in the past two years have reviewed and expanded this program to increase its effectiveness and the number of objects it covers. The review process has both clarified our ideas about what is required to implement such a program successfully and driven the development of some practical organisational tools for the program. A maintenance program can be very unattractive to management and sponsors. It is a never ending project, it rarely has outcomes which will attract the media and, because it mostly maintains the status quo, it can be hard for them to see exactly what they are getting for their money. A maintenance program can also be a daunting thing to run, and for similar reasons. It is a never ending project, so it is hard to identify milestones to generate enthusiasm and a sense of satisfaction in staff and volunteers. It can seem hard to quantify – resources are spread over lots of objects simultaneously and it is hard to estimate the individual cost of maintaining each one. And it is easy to lose focus amongst a large collection of objects – priorities can be difficult to identify, and while you have an object out, it is tempting to do all the remedial work it needs, as well as just the maintenance required to keep it in its current condition. Faced with these challenges, we have been developing a “conservation engineering” approach to the planning and implementation of the Memorial’s large technology maintenance program. This approach aims to reduce the uncertainties in the program, to make the program reliable and predictable and to give it clear annual targets. A certain level of “mass-production” has been adopted to reduce the amorphous mass of maintenance tasks to groups of similar jobs. Good record keeping is being used to underpin sound approximations of the time and money required to maintain similar types of objects with similar requirements. Contingencies are being built into estimates to allow for the unexpected – the vagaries of objects with unusual life histories and unforeseen internal problems. The case-by-case nature of conservation is thus accommodated within a planning framework based on broad knowledge and experience. This minimises the risk �of time and budget overruns and maximises the number of objects which can be actively monitored and maintained with the resources available. This paper outlines some of the particular challenges faced in caring for the Memorial’s large technology collection, and some strategies we have developed to meet those challenges. Features that shape our maintenance program The three features that seem to be most critical in shaping the Memorial’s large technology maintenance program are: ⇒ It involves lots of people; ⇒ It involves lots of objects; ⇒ It is a long term project/commitment. These three aspects may seem obvious, but their ramifications influence how we must design and manage our maintenance program to make it effective and sustainable. Lots of people involved: Our maintenance program does not just involve one person working closely with one particular object, it involves a number of people all doing their bit on lots of objects every so often over many years. This has some advantages – which can be used - and some disadvantages, which must be catered for. The advantages of using lots of different people in a maintenance program are that you have more labour time available and that the routine and grubby jobs can be spread around rather than falling to one or two people. The disadvantages of using lots of people are that most of them will lack familiarity with the objects and you can get a “Chinese whisper” effect – information gets muddled or lost during the regular handovers from one person to another. A lot of the work required is relatively routine and often grubby – visual inspection, cleaning, changing oils. While there needs to be supervision from a skilled mechanic or conservator to ensure the work is done correctly, many maintenance tasks are ideally suited to junior staff or volunteers, who need training before attempting more complex tasks. This is an advantage - routine jobs get a labour force to do them and the labour force gets increased skills – but it results in the disadvantage of a high turnover of participants in the maintenance program, all with minimal familiarity with the objects. Lots of objects involved: Our maintenance program currently covers about 27 functional objects, as well as cleaning and monitoring of all large technology objects on display. We are progressively working towards maintenance of functionality for a further 8 objects, as well as static maintenance (cleaning, monitoring and maintaining stability) for all the remaining large technology objects in the collection. Maintenance as necessary will also be programmed for any new acquisitions. Overall we have approximately 200 large artillery pieces in our �collection, as well as 200 other objects, including aircraft, vehicles, watercraft, electrical equipment such as searchlights and radar. Maintenance for these objects involves a range of tasks, from simple cleaning and monitoring to full operational display maintenance. It must be noted that we distinguish between “operational display maintenance” which ensures that an object will function reliably at very short notice, from “operational maintenance” which ensures that an object can still function but may take considerable time and effort to get going and troubleshoot. This is an important distinction, as operational display maintenance is much more resource intensive. The advantages of maintaining lots of objects are that you can develop efficient, “production line” practices, buy consumables in bulk, justify improvements to equipment and facilities and generate a high profile for the program. The disadvantage is that it is relatively easy to forget the specific needs of individual objects. Long time period: Maintenance on each large technology object is intended to continue for as long as the object is retained within the collection. Looking at this the other way round, this means that as long as the Memorial owns large technology objects it requires a maintenance program. The resources devoted to the program will vary according to the number, type and usage of those objects, but the need for and existence of the program remain constant. The advantages of maintaining objects over a long time period are that you can monitor the effectiveness of specific products and practices in the long term and develop a large body of corporate knowledge about the objects. Again, the disadvantage can be that you can forget the specific needs of individual objects. Practical measures Planning Maintenance plans for individual objects and the collection as a whole must inform each other but need to be distinct entities. Maintenance plans for individual objects must be done as a part of the initial assessment and preparation of the objects - preferably when they enter the collection but sometimes as part of a project to address a backlog of undocumented items within the collection. The collection level maintenance plan must be undertaken as an explicit exercise which uses and builds on these object level plans – a collection level plan will not rise out of a collection of individual object plans automatically. • Specific object maintenance plans – each object should be brought into the work area for: 1. inspection; 2. condition reporting; 3. assessment of significance and intended role in the collection (including whether it is intended to operate any of the object’s functions and if so which ones); �4. development of a usage plan (how often will it be used, under what conditions, any critical points to be observed, etc); 5. photography; 6. cleaning; 7. urgent treatment to make the object stable, safe and maintainable (further treatment required should be documented but deferred until the object is identified as a priority for allocation of resources). 8. Development of a maintenance plan using information from all the above processes. All the documentation compiled through the above processes, as well as the object’s maintenance plan, must be placed on the object’s file or database record. In addition the maintenance plan should be kept physically on or in the object for quick and easy reference. • Collection level maintenance plan – this must be developed using the following information: ⇒ number, general condition and intended role of all objects to be covered by the plan (derived from the object documentation and maintenance plans developed for each object); ⇒ critical issues to be addressed, eg hazards, legal compliance requirements, major environmental problems – these critical issues will of course be the highest priorities for the maintenance plan to address; ⇒ synergies between objects and projects, which can be exploited; ⇒ forward projections of costs of maintenance plan; ⇒ upcoming projects within the museum; ⇒ physical facilities and equipment available for maintenance; ⇒ people available – numbers, skills and availability; ⇒ stakeholder requirements; ⇒ areas needing research; The collection level maintenance plan must be tailored to the resources available, but also indicate where those resources are inadequate and what plans there are to increase/improve them. It must include an assessment of the current funding situation and ideas for how further funding may be obtained if necessary. The collection level maintenance plan should be written down, placed on the relevant file and reviewed annually before the projects and budgets for the next financial year are decided. • Resource planning To successfully attract sponsorship or budgets for additional resources (or even continuation of the existing level of resources) it is necessary to do some preparation. The resources used in maintenance work (time, consumables, equipment, facilities) must be recorded and used to develop good estimates of �the annual cost of maintenance for each large technology object. These estimates can be used to calculate and justify budget bids for existing collections, and estimate the cost of maintenance for new acquisitions and new displays. With this information you are in a position to offer management informed choices – if they need to increase maintenance requirements (for example through new acquisitions), they can either increase resources to match (using your cost estimates) or accept a drop in the quality and reliability of preservation and display outcomes due to reduced maintenance per object. Standardisation To overcome problems associated with a lack of knowledge about the collection and initial lack of skills required for maintenance, we have found it valuable to standardise things wherever possible. Standard tasks and standard formats for information minimise the time people have to spend working out what needs to be done and minimise the mistakes made in interpreting the information. • Standardised tasks Complex or non-standard tasks demand skill and initiative; standard tasks demand patience, care and time. Senior, experienced staff are usually most efficiently used for complex tasks; junior staff and volunteers are generally the best resources for standard tasks (though there are of course exceptions to every rule). Senior staff are usually at a premium, so it makes sense to ask whether there is anything that is currently complex that could be made standard. Once people are familiar with a standard task, they can do it on every object that requires it, with minimal supervision. An example of the conversion of a complex task to a standard one is the maintenance of tyre pressures for Memorial objects. A dull, fiddly and time consuming job, senior staff were required to do it because each wheel/tyre required expertise to judge the amount of pressure suitable for its type, condition and whether it was actually used to support the object or not (many objects are stored and moved using axle supports instead of their wheels). The solution was to use senior staff time over a short period to provide the expertise to make the job simple, standard and efficient. Each wheel/tyre was inspected and a suitable pressure determined. A tyre maintenance sheet was drawn up for each object (see Appendix A) with a clear diagram showing the recommended pressures. The valve on each tyre was checked to ensure it was a standard fitting and worked correctly. A tyre maintenance trolley was assembled, containing an accurate tyre gauge, a small portable compressor, instructions for using the compressor and useful items such as a torch and writing materials. While senior staff still provide periodic input to check that all is working well and the recommended pressures are still appropriate, the result is a job which is quicker, easier, less frustrating and largely appropriate for a lower skill level. �Maintenance at the Memorial is standardised into a rolling system of increasingly in-depth 3 monthly inspections. “A” surveys focus on visual inspection and surface cleaning. “B” surveys involve visual inspection and surface cleaning, plus exercise of all functional systems. “C” surveys involve the same tasks as in “A” and “B” surveys, plus grease and fluid changes and fluid sampling for analysis if required. Familiarity with these regimes means that junior staff and volunteers can proceed with less complex tasks with minimal supervision, while seeking guidance from senior staff for the more complex aspects of the surveys. • Standardised documentation Document work done in simple, quick ways using standardised formats. This prompts people to provide the information which is needed with minimal effort, and makes it easier to locate and compare information between reports. For instance, once people are familiar with the format of a standard maintenance plan, they will know exactly where to look for the critical object specific information within it. The following are examples of standardised LTO forms used within the Memorial1: - LTO maintenance schedule - LTO routine maintenance information sheet - LTO routine maintenance plan - LTO maintenance and movement log sheet - A maintenance survey sheet - B maintenance survey sheet • Standardised (quick and easy) scheduling and reporting The Memorial uses a spreadsheet schedule which allows known dates and commitments to be plugged in several months ahead2. As the work is done it is ticked off in some manner (this will depend on whether you are using a hardcopy or electronic version), making it easy to use the spreadsheet to assess progress, identify shortfalls and generate monthly/quarterly/annual reports. • Maintain databases of collated reference information: It may be useful to maintain spreadsheets recording similar information about each object – spares required, fuels, lubricants and coolants, authorized operators etc. This information provides a quick “look-up” table to help you estimate requirements for bulk orders or people to call in case a scheduled operator is unavailable for an event. However, this format requires time to maintain and is only really effective for information you need to view over a cross section of the collection – everything else is more efficiently accessed by just looking up the records for a particular object. 1 These forms may be used as templates. To obviate difficulties with use/formatting on different systems, they are provided in both Adobe pdf format and in Word for Windows format as separate documents in the “Practical Tips” section of the preprints. 2 A copy of this spreadsheet is included in Adobe pdf and Excel formats in the “Practical Tips” section of the Preprints and may be used as a template if the sample data is stripped out. �Conclusion The optimisation of the Memorial’s large technology maintenance program is a work in progress – we still have a lot more reorganising to do. While we have some good procedures in place, we have not yet combed through the program as a whole to ensure that each element dovetails with all the others in the most efficient way and that our suite of forms for documentation has a co-ordinated presentation and does not duplicate information unnecessarily. The process of optimization is also an ongoing one – every maintenance program needs to be regularly reviewed to ensure that it evolves to meet the needs of an evolving institution and collection. However the ideas outlined above are a start, and have proved very effective in enabling us to meet the challenge of using a lot of different people to care for an awful lot of Big Stuff. Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the contribution of Tom Tubbs to the development and implementation of the Memorial’s large technology maintenance program. References Paine, C., editor, Standards in the museum care of larger and working objects: social and industrial history collections 1994. Museums and Galleries Commission, London, 1994. � https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/c8200fb97a06eaed6d8cd6c6cbc0c51e.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=VhdpkEUBNZLEGTOlswKxetSKwzprcRz-1K5UGhr4om9wfe0%7E0YmY40A1MkyCXzT4P9hpJdZ%7ElZF1Vdnw9dOeWMVUc6cGWXFhpM1FIQCVHBGYZ8kgx5dLlYuVgbWYgsNAybB5mHkjlt4rFCshaMdE4RYbC8xudJo2pyB6jJa17KKKTJGaHBEW03B-2xSg-IbFU%7EqTX6pH-9SJge3KUKBziRLMBtKDwdAf7iLkxoHDOepXk%7Eks874MdL4w%7EpHGGI8I6A7m%7ELAf9rW0joyyjEjsdq51oPAxDXCACoeHk3tFTJEgVOmjvCmPYysoyNKLXh2lwCHJ%7E%7E7LmYd34BDTkIU%7Enw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM ff12d2fde8c06749956a1e01f4617b7f PDF Text Text Running an efficient large technology maintenance program Alison Wain - Question and answer session Alison Wain: What do other people think? How have other people found managing their maintenance programs? Have they had a similar experience? Do you have maintenance programs? Fred Haynes: Our biggest problem is finding out what we’ve got in the first place! We’ve got lots of big pieces and they tend to be stood at the front of naval establishments or that sort of thing and we’ve absolutely no idea what condition they’re in. So before we actually know what we’ve got, and catalogue what we’ve got, we’re hard up developing a maintenance program. Alison Wain: So you’re really at the point where you’re doing inductions, which is that inspection and examination? Fred Haynes: Well, we rely on particularly naval establishments to provide us with information on what they’ve got and they’re very blinkered. Unless it’s a nice shiny plaque hanging up on the wall in their mess or something – that piece of old rusty equipment, or painted grey equipment, which has been in the establishment for twenty five years doesn’t come up on their list because it’s always been there. Alison Wain: That’s what we’ve found too. That’s what I was saying about undocumented objects – by actually doing an induction and examining them you can give them an identity that they didn’t really have in people’s minds before. And even just having that documentation about their significance…I think this idea of using the Burra Charter is just fantastic – you’re tapping into an existing industry standard, giving them an identity and then saying “And – we need to do some maintenance work to even keep them at the state they are now.” Fred Haynes: Yes. Mind you, our budget for our island up there - for our operation is basically $2,000 a year for stationary. Alison Wain: Yes, I do understand – that is a big problem. Fred Haynes: Nobody has any idea of what’s involved in any of the conservation side of things. Alison Wain: What you’re saying is very true; because those objects have no identity, nobody feeds them any money, so in some ways it’s a bootstrapping thing. By giving them this identity, you’re actually raising consciousness of what’s there, and then you might start to get a trickle of money, and perhaps you could think about applying for a grant or something like that. Sometimes you can get grants to do a collection survey. Fred Haynes: We’re Department of Defence – we can’t do that. Alison Wain: Can’t you? That’s a bit mean! �Fred Haynes: That’s what we’ve been told. Alison Wain: The other thing that we’ve found is that at the moment we’re doing a lot of inductions, partly because we’ve had a lot of acquisitions resulting from our Collection Development Plan over the last couple of years. But as we do more inductions, more objects will go on the maintenance program, so we go gradually from a high on inductions and a relative low on maintenance to a low on inductions and a high on maintenance. So I see the level of resources probably not varying too much from what we’ve got now. It may need to go up a bit, but in some ways because we’re coming down in the number of inductions – they take a long time to do really thoroughly. I’m hoping that, once we’ve got everything onto the maintenance plan, that will be a relatively low input per object, but it will cover lots of objects. David Thurrowgood: I just have a quick comment in support of Alison’s structured maintenance plans. We at the National Museum [of Australia] are a long way behind the War Memorial in the sense that we’ve only just begun, in the last probably five years, starting to get our objects onto these sorts of plans - except for a core group of about 15 or 20 objects which the museum has always considered of high profile. Now those objects, we’re discovering - because they’ve had that absolute basic minimum maintenance every year for the last 15 or 20 years - are now in relatively good, stable condition. But there are others, which have been acquired by someone for some reason at some stage in the past and sat in the corner - and we’re now going through those objects and trying to put those onto the same sort of high quality maintenance plan. We’re finding things like gear boxes and engine sumps full of water, and they’ve been sitting that way in the museum’s care for 20 years, everybody assuming that “That’s OK, it’s in a museum”. You can never make those assumptions and it’s only when you start to get objects onto a long-term maintenance plan that you are beginning to be effective in their preservation. Dave Rockell: Have you found that your exhibition opening of the ANZAC Hall started to interfere with your maintenance program? Alison Wain: Interestingly, not really. The maintenance person used to be, yes - the only person we used to have dedicated to that used to be constantly pulled off to exhibition programs and so forth. I think by actually upping the profile of the maintenance program, and the importance of that – actually the big increase in our operational display fleet and commitments has really driven the need for a dedicated maintenance program. And so we’re able to say “Well, no, we can’t take this person off to just feed the project needs for the galleries, because that means that you won’t have this operational display fleet available. So if you want this you have to dedicate someone to it.” And so - having that person there - we’ve been able to raise the profile of the program, and that’s contributed to an understanding that that maintenance is needed at a lower level (but still at a significant level) for objects that may be static as well, or partially operating. So I’d say no. In fact the thing that’s affected it has mostly been the operational display fleet because it’s a very high profile – people see them out a lot, and so that has been really, really useful for us. And I think now that we’ve got it established in our Collection Conservation Plan (there’s a suite of documents – the Collection Development Plan, the Collection Documentation Plan and the Collection Conservation Plan - they all interact, they’re across-the-Memorial documents), and in the Collection Conservation Plan it’s very clearly identified that �we have an Annual Preventive Conservation program (which is maintenance – we can’t use the word maintenance because they won’t give us depreciation funding), and that we’ve got a Stabilisation Program (which is actually really the inductions), and then we’ve got our Operational Display program. So they’re very clearly identified and approved and funded as programs that receive support at high levels. � https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/6f4263e28390bcffd1b3401b9b6006e8.doc?Expires=1774483200&Signature=exk7E1i351tI7%7E791wlFF6a67V%7EjKZJCD8sVPEAglqstQoOnGt4qmd0JYJRBGDr8cZM5RUEI7ouiZl6%7Ef9N1vZxim7FrtooUavRbgpHe1MGcr3QtMa64dommjBWxsxrb3tPEL1XcjVaF65LzGD6Je5VGEC9iTvRBi0iX6z%7EIi9AmWWe3CmMGmEqkKO39%7EEuFVoQsxPvT11%7EEgc%7E%7EwlLdkSvUikwEdnCvfFNk7Ldugx7x1EOc4FwBhOX6evSUNYidqmMDkURwpe4RM-hi7QVAnlRiisBULv%7EOk0wrQICQ0FozXcYQirA40VdUj9PGCpFGnHAPWtO50VtvChxo4WqRHg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 7f7c48d4acfadbfbd199fdf9227a98c4 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/a9bd2c7c8699117efb978a69e8a9e945.doc?Expires=1774483200&Signature=nBhXVP5hxUbXPewsb%7EcyDZsGOu6ZwFNgA-ZTfHd%7EYFeyPoI7lnwcEuy%7ELfQ076BzIq%7ExqKpgF4Dt4QpdR2BT3GJ9tGLv9geBHX5N%7ETqa5vv0CKr07Gv5BGRmdFHXvYo3MmIXqPlRhQ3f80dp3AtrCnZ%7E9IRrA8Ppn3S5WjB3zDvFhTRDHCW6mCZ9M707j25UHUuIFp87p60T8630cCVISL1EfpRwh2SQoXCIeHTGhTKZOFXdgrlxW5AVRXsgyMkK%7EOle8bltbli62srZJ4cusgZGY-1Lawq1Jm8zNxyIl4yjDHkatpCRLxMCygEadrVbA0VwbAVgPX9kmmzAIPcwWw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM ca41b49c8be405f77b46bd6628ef5161 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/e5ebcdffd88b20d6d40f17b9acba1e8e.doc?Expires=1774483200&Signature=YB1Ls0i0dCBCLRK%7Ee3YcvD0nv%7EaIm35fpwuh9MxWDuRbHg9Rqv3t5FTxM5YFxUN3vqdWsbq-JpORu904dDE41VfeJx3EzKUcWmy6I0uFVsploFrbq4t3ZrpsYa59%7Es7cP8KgJWc8XNjw4TdlqYy4Zl%7E53loBPxDHBbqm66cxzUodremj9yRDbQLCHa7VV4WF85GVjnoOvRItQHE3LUrNBg3XT5-ZdXtJUoSDapmkBus21z2qOsXmvETQbvWwVKQjh9ZGfNnH9O49qr3rXyBzUezoJH284us0rJRvhoThKc%7EbPRXROHoRul-SJ3iWjHUa7bL9MK4EHVoCBLI%7Ecp%7EyBw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 663a0cbe661e72ab0f7b694c0a6e0ce2 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/e22f7958fd46715eb923df9cfcb865b4.doc?Expires=1774483200&Signature=UBuwV9V6X1NNIsDf3TJtAXrq51nw39ZmpHqtgBgGi4wykcrcXwIYqLJXNbHIcI6wm0EmYCII7mCYXku%7EL7EBvhtf1p6UO8bZ4s-EgctpahODPSG8S0LjSt6c%7EqSl-%7Ex-kcZuO4Fwk3X2vFYhdcaOfbiRFiFVFbeeTw2Xkot1JkB4Dj-FneMOrlXYYuEiOuRiHqzCrcQ8fMdR1c1tMDupP8emY%7E-l1d43s0qNYOn7689ZFLfaeMApFE5a6trWqV98R9loWB3Ale1BZ7XJTl0yRyb7QTuTGdKi%7EJq4PzovLrTQpaIjQK5b9pjiDPa87bWy7XimGz-6oOSzj6qxewIbYA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM ae600cfb0718b0cda6ba5ebdf4bd4124 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/815bb048a4716d255a9e0b9eceea64fb.doc?Expires=1774483200&Signature=nuKRXCrUrPKxZsujEKDdTwI33y2MSEnl%7EC9VW8Epihi1BYhmqa4xdyRGxwN2eYFW7goCN6CfalK4qykNXCfFmf-IoooD33teBmeYE0kt4jRy8icnlIQqv2eUplGbV9iOzuNz3wtAVgcJBABTsXWvT13RApze0nsg0kTNQ63EU67v1ZVV6pCAaXeCpGN0Kd%7EO8GFSdTa2lNH2KaUoo6pPHeDxnUumrnidz7szT%7EWIdWMMvY8IWaTiRtHFundb4CwaPhB98teevQReOn-M35THoVw7ZHkztdXdnRB1Nq4XQKfNP2UWwjVd6ODmjhiIdyGTAFpGWr1NktumD%7Efjj9u6Ow__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 469543795dbbfab8495be7b0542f77b1 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/c56f84d02bec82a62a2d61e83afd4983.xls?Expires=1774483200&Signature=VYgSPjkkCe3Mt0w83KhWcC69lnaMQz90T37IhjewzovEZV8NVREj9p%7EOEfvstG9VXNst4nViAj8uWq9cri7VetGk-AiD7YzyJ07LS6IoiguhQaeDUbHh5EXTEQypDdxui4cjfoPGAA96h0DgzSiVuk0suMW8TecJ86mb1uJtZCIm6ntL7-KsbGKiNk8PlsHVCrSovIhEAFQ-Bmmn%7E2VXkojt1Kxp0FWd3pv716o7qWpedex%7EIkqyGTTMIue4Qa8FmUkrClWBS4EaFm2V5SfL3gGK7LlQ%7EW4drHTIyJ3tjlaRnwq6yosTMvUaIBdOQtvbXd1PH6aBPNCUEHHEm1oYVA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 30bcf5b0f3ec2a6bbea1b2f800b435ad 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 Organising an effective maintenance plan for Big Stuff 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 maintenance operation project management Treatment and Maintenance https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/9d37f933db4604ce36b13b526a1717d6.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=Zq0k%7EpHRdQ9HyBpB-0Ty7I2-OSL53RNDm9dVVf6CHop91M2uOfLNnAPEW0pEam1s-VlXLo6LF8QbW3opAtCGb19CR4IxoEpJEJBOVMxDXE71qJ5BCTJ2CDy1bR2lW5ff3jXgVui%7EVk2mh6LhTxyER1fNsofdMqThrplkSWrGsvKpBRlf9blQXkoIxeFhL3FNihjsa0hNIm6kyw00XO2S2UHjATFbQxC7VkuLYTmN-Rq1qRah4wBY0YVsVx3GbXf32A65vJI4MC9YoMk4eBLQ1mauuAf2U7xUpMSBzub8NbsE2ERsTe3jx3w7e94mAt0W8nDOTeHx9FZJ24zziNyl3g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 5d7640b693d4c592cf368c3f2848f73b PDF Text Text Conserving “Big Stuff” – lessons learnt Alayne Alvis Australian War Memorial Abstract: This paper presents views formed by the author after the experience of conserving large technology objects and aims to encourage thought and discussion about some of the non-conservation aspects of large technology conservation projects. The topics discussed include the preconceived ideas that may affect your project (both your ideas and those of other people), dealing with specialists, contractors and volunteers and looking at the way you use time in a project. This paper aims to expand on thoughts that I have had looking back at large technology object (LTO) conservation projects that I have worked on. I have thought about how things turned out and I wondered about the things that I should have considered more at the time but never did. As topics for discussion, they are based on personal opinion and are put forward as a part of LTO conservation projects that may not be always considered at the time. The ideas that I have looked at have fallen into two groups: perceptions and resources. I have divided both into subgroups – perceptions into “the perceptions of others” and “your perceptions”; and resources is divided into “people” and “time”. Perceptions The perceptions of others A high profile, historically significant or otherwise “glamorous” project may attract people with their own agendas and previously conceived formed opinions, drawn from a variety of sources. A common misconception when dealing with historical material is that all the information about an object is already known and published (often in the popular press), and that such sources are reliable. Such is the respect that published works garner, that people can easily fall into the “if it’s in a book, it must be true” school of thought. As an example, the Messerschmitt Bf-109 belonging to the Australian War Memorial was identified as being a “G” model. One of the features of that model is the vertical leading edge of the rudder. The rudder on the aircraft at the Memorial, however, has a forwardfacing counterweight at the top, which was a feature of other models such as the “E”, but not of the “G”. The classification of the model number was queried by several people, who quoted various authors and books, maintaining that a G-6 could not possibly have this shaped rudder. What was not taken into account is the history of this particular aircraft. Basic information was obtained from the aircraft, such as the werke number, serial number and �engine number. From these numbers, the basic designation of the aircraft could be ascertained, and from some surviving manufacturing records, we do know that it was part of batch where significant modifications were being made to the standard model on the production line. Additionally we have contextual evidence on the aircraft such as the continuity of paint finishes and camouflage details across and between parts that would be considered standard and non-standard on the “G” model. In this case, we can say that the authors of these “authoritative” works may not have been aware of this variation. Hopefully, now that this aircraft is on display and articles about it and images of it are becoming widely available, a footnote may be written in a revised version of the “authoritative” history to explain this anomaly. However, in the meantime, you need to deal with the effect that this information has on people’s ideas. Information you receive from people is motivated by a genuine, often passionate, attempt to help. Any misinformation that you are given is generally not a deliberate attempt to influence the way you work on the object; it is often a result of people repeating some widely held but unfounded myth or someone’s much-beloved pet theory. Another source of incorrect information or interpretations is the “everybody knows” school of opinion. For the person holding this opinion, their source of information could be themselves, their father, their friend, or often in an Australian context “a bloke in the pub”. Additionally, this information is often accompanied with additional news that there is a long-standing military conspiracy to suppress it. These views are often very difficult to deal with because critical thinking is not important and research is often disregarded in favour of a “what would you know?” attitude. This can be difficult to handle because of firmly held beliefs and the idea that what you are doing will damage or destroy this object. Sometimes views can be so firmly held that people will feel justified in going to the news media and this can generate a great deal of work trying to reverse negative publicity. The main aim of this kind of course of action is that the project needs to be saved from you! The only way to deal with this is to have your research done thoroughly and interpretations clearly and logically argued. If you have cultivated the local news media and kept them supplied with accurate and up-to-date information, you may be able deflect negative opinion and the bad publicity that it brings. However this is not a given, and in my experience the news media are possibly more interested in running a sensational story than the factual (but boring) one you have on offer. It is most unlikely that you will be able to change really firmly held beliefs. If you do vary your story, you will only reinforce that your position is incorrect. There is no one way of dealing with this, but I might advise: don’t engage in disputation unless you have to (especially if you can see that there is an emotional component to the opposition to your view), disseminate your information where and when it may be an effective argument for your case, and treat people who disagree with you courteously and maintain your own dignity. Hopefully, if it can be seen that you treat other opinions with respect, you may gain some respect for your own. �Your perceptions Once you have identified other people’s perceptions, you should be in a better position to look at your own. Are your own ideas about your project reasonable and based on sound research and reasoning? The preliminary phase of a conservation project often entails researching published material that refers to the object you are dealing with or others of the same type or vintage. While published material can be incredibly helpful in deriving information on the mechanics or on parts, as discussed above, information from “authoritative” works on the history and evolution of that vehicle or engine may not be applicable to your particular object – yours may not have had a similar history to others of the same vintage. What you also need to be aware of is the course of thinking that the material that you read sets you upon. Emphasis on certain points of the object may lead you to give less weight to information that occurs elsewhere. Continuing with the example of the Bf-109; faint, fragmentary graffiti was found in a hard-to-access area of the aircraft. A person who was thin and agile enough to access the area and could read German formed the opinion that it wasn’t German, but possibly Russian. At this point, the attitude was “that’s interesting”, and we wondered if was possible that the aircraft had served on the Eastern front. It wasn’t until we were able to persuade two translators to don overalls and wriggle under the aircraft that we became aware of the full import of this graffiti. The inscriptions turned out to be in both Ukrainian and Russian. From preliminary analysis of the fragmentary inscriptions, we have a good idea of the age, gender, education standard and regional origin of some of the writers. From pre-existing information, we knew that the aircraft went through a rebuild very late in 1944. This was confirmed by the various “recycled” panels that were used and the painted rebuild plant symbol on the exterior. What the graffiti revealed to us was that slave labour had been used on this particular aircraft. This discovery adds another layer of significance to this object. From this example, you can see that information found on the object can cast a significantly different light on what you already know about that object and may prompt a re-think about how you deal with a particular aspect of that project. Resources People These are some of my thoughts on two of the main groups of people who you are likely to be involved with on a large project – specialists and volunteers. �Specialists will include conservation staff but may also include such people as specialist object handlers or engineers, depending on whether you need to make assessments of supports or structural soundness. It’s also likely that you will need the services of outside contractors for some tasks. Large technology projects can have a very strange effect on contractors. They can become incredibly interested! Many people have commented that something like this is a refreshing change in the work they do; that they never thought that they would get a chance to be able to work on a piece of really interesting historical technology. Interest can be piqued to the point of you being offered professional services for free or at a much reduced rate, simply because a contractor wants to work on your project. This can both be a blessing and a problem. With tight budgets, it can be very difficult to ignore the offer of free professional services. In a case like this, select and make decisions with your contractors or providers of professional services as if they were a normal fee-charging service; should this person decide not to charge you, that is simply a saving on your budget. The matter of dealing with gratis professional services will probably require advice from your finance section. There may be some deemed value or some kind of official documentation required. Another thing to consider if someone makes an offer of free services is the matter of professional liability and standards. The professional you deal with still must work to industry standard, no matter how much or little they charge and this is something that you may need to make clear. Volunteers can be a great asset to a project, but like so many things, volunteer services need good management on your part to achieve a good outcome. If a volunteer has not worked before with you on a very similar project, you have to be prepared at the beginning to invest time in training, imparting knowledge and getting that person thinking the way that you want them to. Once they understand your needs and approaches, you are more than halfway there to getting them to work the way you want. One of the fallacies often mentioned in connection with working with volunteers is that putting more volunteers on a project can get the job done faster. From my experience there is an optimum number that full-time staff members can support, while still doing their own work. Any more than that and the staff become teachers, finders of tools and supplies; anything but conservators. Generally that optimum number is quite small, perhaps a maximum of four volunteers per full-time person, although this number will naturally vary, depending on many factors including the experience of the people involved and the degree of skill need to carry out the tasks needed. While volunteers can’t replace staff, they round out the functioning of the staff and can add depth to the work that is carried out, and although using volunteers can be more complex than you originally expected, volunteers can also the greatest ambassadors for your project. Thorough networks of friends and family, they can engender interest in your project (and also your institution) resulting in good publicity, visitation to your institution and possibly also more volunteers. �Time Time can be your most valuable resource, and in my view, possibly the most difficult one to deal with. From personal experience, I found it difficult to gauge how much time I needed to devote to a particular problem or task. My dilemma was trying to find an efficient balance between time spent managing the project and time spent actually working on the project. The problem was not so much how much time could be spent on a particular conservation task; I was one of a team and there were others who could do it. My problem was how much time I could devote to “human” tasks such as helping someone improve their skills or coaching them with a problem. Often in the back of my mind was the question, “What sort of return is the project going to get for the time I spend here?” I was willing to spend time early in a project on improving skills, knowing that this would lead to a greater number of people with better skills, able to work autonomously and to the required standards. My dilemma was often that I could see myself spending time dealing with a problem or an issue which I thought would make no apparent immediate contribution to the outcome of the project. In retrospect, I think that it was probably a very short-sighted approach, as one can get very “results-driven” in a situation like this, especially as deadlines approach. The other problem I had with time was maintaining momentum. Projects often seemed to have periods where, despite what seemed to be normal hours of work occurring each week, little seemed to be happening. Examining this at a distance, I can see that there were variations in output probably linked to the progress of each of the sections of the project. As a new section was wheeled in, there was the anticipation of something new to do, and lots of it; while at the other end, when a section was nearly finished, there was a tendency to do time-consuming fiddly jobs that caused little real difference. The seasonal variation of the working year also affected the project. For projects that last a year or more, I should have allowed for the effect of staff holidays, long weekends and the December party season. Conclusion The bigger a conservation project is, the more likely it is to have many other nonconservation issues associated with it. Some include the ones discussed here: the issues of perceptions and resources. A conclusion that I formulated from these thoughts is that the actual “hands-on” conservation is possibly the least of the things that will go wrong in the process of conserving an LTO, and that if you do commit to good research and management planning, a good treatment is a likely consequence. �Acknowledgements My thanks to Australian War Memorial curators John White and Chris Goddard for assistance with information and technical points, and to Stan Veitsman and Peter Sawczak for the graffiti translations. � https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/1fb89e452e37c9cc26c3186bcd7ccee9.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=VPKvJcOpUawvMSHE5Ut9eqHsQFQDAA%7EHkpIjsMrBJV55%7EIWgyEhRbPBnuEfb7oBf4KlKroVGi5NF3Yzi2MEe-hTR0CLi%7EFANNRr2xtGOfzaSa2Z0ns9RRuX2Y2NdzEp-TLT8HSCGUDSKch935wk5qEaw4u32l2KwoHF6l-%7E4%7E1BKHq3RA67LgWU3jNlmo4-LXLK09cy3qAlTAJ-49zWoRHGiV5AGbj-webBN1TChAUoDYzPyX-G6tvMIqBxNz-HBvM-YCByKt3aAC9t%7ETX%7ERjSpYZn%7E3DYr5oF9Fkk2oVxACB9rDMcuMygfML3jm5p5-xfeg43ZE59ZsaB6qkVhdOA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 4361f9f477482e4cac5b15c88c48e449 PDF Text Text Conserving 'Big Stuff' - lessons learnt Alayne Alvis - Question and answer session Chris Knapp: I noticed you said that with volunteers you found that you spend a lot of time training them and “not doing your job”. Alayne Alvis: At the beginning especially, yes. Chris Knapp: I get the same from my conservation staff. They will say “We’re training volunteers, we’re not doing our job”. I’m sorry, but if you’ve got a volunteer, your job is to train the volunteer as well. Alayne Alvis: Oh, I don’t have a problem with that, it’s just that I think at one stage I was just running around in ever decreasing circles going “Oh my Lord, I’ve got all this stuff to do, oh my Lord, I’ve got all these people to deal with, what am I going to do next?” I’m really a big fan of training – Col will be pleased to know that until very recently I was at tech doing a metal-bashing course, so I can bend metal with the best of them! Sometimes you’ve just got to pick your moment as to when you want to teach somebody something. Sometimes you get your people who you know have a particular skill in an area, where you know they’re really very good at it, but unfortunately you don’t have work in that area for them, so you’ve got to wind them up and point them in a different direction. No, I don’t have a problem with teaching people or the transfer of skill, it’s just that sometimes I don’t want to do it at this very minute. Chris Knapp: The other thing that we do with our volunteers is, my conservation officers have an assistant and they have anything up to 20 volunteers – fortunately not all in one go – but my volunteers don’t make mistakes, my conservation officers do. They are responsible for that project and if the volunteer gets it wrong it’s because the conservation officer hasn’t taught them properly or hasn’t supervised them. Alayne Alvis: I agree. � 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 Conserving “Big Stuff” – lessons learnt Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alayne Alvis Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 authenticity Ethics and Approaches project management volunteers https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/91fe4da5cb5138c2d0b851531be13772.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=UmNorzPK4PuTegM4KdtQMW3anvNcKxfID2nqWRjP5vL0cfRP%7EUUxP6e2qN8l9e5KUjMoO2ateNbhvfOl-PIfbeDjpetiFuIXauHamBc0uC-G6eECLE%7EDujlLxZV%7EFAbJvthaTvo7r93b63AreO1xyUVBkcr6zRBRIw0MoqslupwzYEbVtUXgP-tQz5itUD2YpXPWl7iRxGX0ZxpaWHIbLayvHn4qr9d42Y1knoBiND-U8b24flczsGxS8RGH5dKogmb-U1gH%7EQ6c8u7pfXED8X58u2hpJG8G7jrMLCYula%7Ea5gjl0hPPaaTm2B4b6QAbLvG%7EQtNZUNNKJrhrkxyLOA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 16e33838eb6540c1f38d2e86a4ac1f2c PDF Text Text Managing floating heritage: a decade of managing a fleet of historic vessels at the Australian National Maritime Museum Steven Adams Australian National Maritime Museum Abstract: The acquisition of a fleet of ships allows a museum exciting opportunities for the presentation and interpretation of maritime heritage. It also poses many questions beyond traditional museum disciplines. What is the best way to maintain such a fleet and how many is enough? Given that museums acquire objects to be retained in perpetuity, how long should vessels be kept, and what of the question of use? In these days of limited funding, what is feasible: how should we determine acceptable loss of historic fabric, and how can this be accommodated, reduced and documented? These questions were embraced by the Australian National Maritime Museum and have come a long way to being answered by the Museum in its 12 year experience presenting floating maritime heritage at its purpose-built site on Sydney Harbour. The fleet currently includes large steel warships, a number of timber boat, yachts, and Asian vessels with linkages to Australia – a curiously diverse fleet in a national collecting institution context. A model for vessel conservation has been drawn up to control all aspects of vessel management including the development of a philosophical framework to underpin all conservation work. Based upon the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter, 1999 (the Burra Charter) and other heritage protocols essentially written for built heritage, it has been successfully adapted to support conservation �of the fleet and has the potential to provide guidance for any item of moveable cultural heritage. Museum staff with artisan trade backgrounds, and additional training in heritage management, carry out all specialised conservation work. A strategic approach has been taken to staffing with the development of a heritage trade training scheme, now with 6 graduates over ten years. This has been most successful and may provide continuity and leadership for the future conservation of the ships in the National Collection. 1 Introduction This paper seeks to demonstrate an approach to the management of historic vessels based upon a framework contained in individual conservation management plans, a system which has shown some promise at the Australian National Maritime Museum (ANMM). The twin roles of conservation and management of functional objects are combined in these plans where the assessment of significance and recommended conservation treatments are seen as enabling policies to allow the management of the vessel to proceed to action. For illustrative purposes use is made throughout the paper of the conservation management plan (CMP) drawn up for the Krait, a fishing vessel used by Allied commandos for a daring canoe raid on occupied Singapore in 1943. 2 A National Maritime Museum for Australia The ANMM first appeared as a recommendation from the 1975 Pigott Report into cultural institutions. Nothing happened until the mid-eighties when a small secretariat was established and a site became available in Darling Harbour, a semi-derelict former industrial precinct of Sydney’s docklands, flagged for redevelopment under a master plan for urban renewal. The area was not without heritage significance as it was here that the early port facilities for Sydney were consolidated in the century, serviced �by a surviving railway siding dating from 1855 and the birth of railways in New South Wales. Construction of the new museum building commenced in 1986 and completion occurred four years later with the official opening by the Prime Minister Bob Hawke in November 1991. Directions for the architect Philip Cox included the need for a ceiling height sufficient to house the Americas Cup winner Australia II and as two finger wharves were included, an expectation of floating exhibits was established. Founding a national maritime museum in the post-industrial era, with little legacy of inherited collections, gave creators of the Museum some challenges. Order was established with the objects collected displayed in galleries along thematic lines; Discovery, Immigration, Commerce, Navy, Leisure and a US Gallery, a Bicentennial gift from the people of the United States. What should be displayed and the question of a floating collection were matters addressed by Professor Peter Spearitt and Mr Vaughan Evans, who were commissioned to develop a collection policy for the new museum. They reported, in October 1985, that a relationship should be entered into with the then Sydney Maritime Museum, a community-funded volunteer run entity, for their fleet of floating craft to be moored at the wharves and be a major adjunct to the ANMM. In particular they strongly recommended against the ANMM becoming directly involved in the running of historic floating craft, based largely upon cost. 2.1 A floating collection Following the failure of the two museums to agree on these arrangements the proposal lapsed and the new ANMM set about collecting a fleet of vessels. A former lightship, CLS 4 was the first vessel acquired by the museum in 1987 with HMAS Advance (patrol boat), Akarana (1888 cutter and a bicentennial gift from New Zealand), John Louis (pearling lugger), Krait (commando raider and on loan from the Australian War Memorial), Hong Hai �(a Vietnamese refugee boat and on loan from the National Museum of Australia [NMA]) and Sekar Aman (a Maduran lete lete) following in early 1988. At this time the collection stood at seven (7) vessels, though Hong Hai was returned to the NMA and TuDo (another Vietnamese refugee boat) purchased in its place. By the time of opening in November 1991 this had grown to 12, with the addition of Thistle (a 1903 sailing fishing boat), Kathleen (early offshore racer and bicentennial gift from Norway), HMAS Vampire (Daring class destroyer), Bareki (wooden harbour tug) and Epic Lass (naval officers’ launch) in 1990. The former submarine HMAS Onslow followed in June 1999, completing the current fleet. By any objective measurement, the floating collection is one of the largest of any museum in Australia and possibly the most diverse anywhere. Its establishment owed more to circumstance and serendipity than any systematic and integrated approach. Some have said there are too many yachts, others that the navy is overrepresented, while still others cry too few commercial craft. Choice was limited to what was practical and available in the circumstances then there prevailing, though at the time, the museum demonstrated courage in collecting ‘unfashionable’ vessels such as the lateen-rigged Maduran lete lete and the Vietnamese refugee boat. The number of vessels peaked as a function of the resources available to maintain and care for them as a collection. The knowledge gained over the first ten years has acted as a corrective for the initial estimates of resources needed, while the attitude in the intervening years has been to resist any further increase in the size of the fleet. While acquisition of an object into a museum collection traditionally has a connotation of perpetuity, the reality of such an aim, in the context of the recurrent funding demanded by an operational vessel, suggests that a ‘sunset’ may need to be at least contemplated as part of the forward planning process. A recent exercise has been the production of a five-year plan with costing for the whole fleet, to enable long-term decision making and resource allocation. �Should decisions be made on the retention or otherwise of specific vessels, a means of determining their relative importance to the collection is needed. As functional objects it is recognised that there will be progressive loss of fabric through use, where the desire to display and interpret the vessels will need to be traded off against the long-term consequences of loss. The identification of significance is of great importance in this context. 3 Vessel conservation at the ANMM The acquisition of a collection immediately demanded resources, skills and infrastructure. Staff were recruited from suitable candidates with marine trade backgrounds, using an approach to conservation little different from good commercial practice, where applicable, traditional techniques were applied with not too many compromises. Initially this seemed to work well for Western craft, but what of the Asian vessels in the collection about which very little was known and even less documented? It was understandable that these vessels would provide challenges, but it wasn’t long before issues arose on even those vessels that were well known. What approach should be taken with a pearling lugger from Northwest Australia, changed significantly from new with a raised forecastle and a cut-down rig? Should we remove the former and reinstate the latter? What of the most recent modifications (some very rudimentary) reflecting the change in trade from pearling to shell harvesting. Is this important in telling the story of this vessel? Eventually it became obvious that a clear and logical framework was needed to guide staff on the best way to deal with all vessels. Additionally, any framework had to be practical, effective and, if possible, have recognition within the museum profession as a legitimate approach. The demands placed upon a vessel in the Fleet, as the collection of vessels in the museum came to be known, were far more onerous than was the case with other collection objects. While most museum professionals are content with the idea of displaying �collection objects in a completely passive way in a controlled environment, there was a clear expectation from all that a vessel (normally afloat) needed to be kept afloat, and preferably operational, to deserve a place in the collection. 4 Conservation standards for floating vessels What standards were available to guide those staff working with the Fleet? An examination of existing maritime museums in Australia with floating collections demonstrated that most were in the hands of volunteer run, community funded groups, many based around a single ship. These ships tended to be either naval or small commercial ships of steel or timber construction, generally with steam propulsion. Resources were scarce, work being carried out using skilled and semi-skilled volunteer labour and traditional techniques. No particular approach to collection management and preservation seems to have been consistently applied and the results were mixed. The ANMM as a national collecting institution possessed a conservation laboratory complete with highly skilled staff and recourse was initially made to this area. The conservators were organised along generic materials lines, with practitioners demonstrating specialised skills in textiles, metals, paper and other media. Their work, in the traditional museum context, was preservation and involved treating objects that remain in tightly controlled environmental conditions of temperature, humidity and light levels. They were understandably reluctant to become too deeply involved in collection vessels as functional objects, which survive in a hostile environment with no control over these cardinal variables and others such as wind, waves, precipitation, extreme UV, mechanical damage and wear. Likewise the ANMM collection management system, as sophisticated as it was, could not adequately deal with an object as complex as an operational vessel. In the absence of established guidelines for preserving vessels from the traditional museum disciplines, other avenues had to be explored. What was needed was more than an inventory of useful practices or standardised �terminology such as those produced by the US National Park Service - given the national status of this collection, it deserved an integrated approach beginning with a philosophical perspective. 5 Conservation management in Australia The conservation management of historic buildings in Australia is now a mature discipline, with professionals working along documented guidelines within recognised protocols. Countless examples exist of both good and bad outcomes in building conservation, with a lively literature of papers and publications. A vessel, as a functional object, shares a great deal in common with a building; it is designed and built for a certain purpose, may undergo alteration over the years, possibly become obsolete for that original purpose and needs to be adaptively reused, often with great creativity to provide for itself a viable future. The conservation planning process for historic buildings in Australia is based upon guidance provided by the Burra Charter and other heritage protocols promulgated by the New South Wales Heritage Office and similar government agencies. The phenomenon of the Conservation Plan has come to be most widely known through the writings of James Semple Kerr and his seminal work of the same name, now highly developed and in its fifth edition. Though essentially written for built heritage, the conservation planning process lends itself successfully to support conservation of the Fleet and has the potential to provide guidance for any item of moveable cultural heritage. The conservation planning process provides a philosophical framework to underpin all conservation work. At the heart is the identification of significance: what is important about the vessel and how to ensure the sustainability of this significance in the face of constraints, to allow interpretation and access. The process has the capacity not only to cover adequately the conservation of vessels, but immediately place this work on a recognised heritage industry platform. �In spite of the maturity of the conservation planning process, particularly in Australia through the work of James Kerr, it is not well known within the museum profession. 6 Conservation management plans (CMPs) and the Fleet For some years statements of significance existed for most vessels in the Fleet, and though development had hardly progressed beyond this point, there was a clear understanding of the concept of significance and its intrinsic physical location. This had prompted staff to identify those areas that were significant and vulnerable before deciding on any work required. The adoption of the CMP model allowed a seamless link to develop between the established significance and the proposed conservation treatments and actions. This flow incorporated existing reporting systems, gave a documented basis for decision making and provided an excellent didactic tool for training of staff in heritage management. 6.1 The Krait CMP An example of the CMP was that written for the Krait. As previously mentioned this vessel served during the Second World War and was used to insert commandos who successfully prosecuted a canoe raid on shipping in occupied Singapore in October 1943. The vessel is part of the collection of the Australian War Memorial and on loan to the ANMM. The CMP follows the structure set out in Kerr (2000) and is consistent with the guidelines in the Burra Charter. The very much simplified flowchart of work adopted is illustrated in Figure 1. HISTORICAL RESEARCH UNDERSTANDING THE PLACE PHYSICAL ANALYSIS STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE CLIENT NEEDS & CONSTRAINTS CONSERVATION POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS OTHER NEEDS & CONSTRAINTS �Figure 1: Diagram of the conservation plan process (abridged) from the Burra Charter (p.10). The CMP was prepared in house, for internal use. The identified users of the CMP were primarily Fleet staff responsible for the maintenance of the vessel. The CMP does however have the potential for use by anyone with a need to know more of this vessel and its story. Useful definitions are stated early, to ensure comparability and understanding where, again, the Burra Charter is used as the source. Fabric means all the physical material of the place. Conservation means all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural significance. It includes maintenance and may according to circumstance include preservation, restoration and adaptation and will commonly be a combination of more than one of these. Maintenance means the continuous protective care of the fabric, contents and setting of a place, and is to be distinguished from repair. Repair involves restoration or reconstruction and should be treated accordingly. Preservation means maintaining the fabric of a place in its existing state and retarding deterioration. Restoration means returning the existing fabric of a place to a known earlier state by removing accretions or by reassembling existing components without the introduction of new material. Reconstruction means returning a place as nearly as possible to a known earlier state and is distinguished by the introduction of materials (new or old) into the fabric. This is not to be confused with either re-creation or conjectural reconstruction which are outside the scope of the charter. �Adaptation means modifying a place to suit proposed compatible uses. Compatible use means a use involving no change to the culturally significant fabric, changes that are substantially reversible, or changes requiring minimal impact. It is in terminology that immediate distinctions can be made between the treatment of vessels at the ANMM and accepted practice elsewhere. This point is made by examining the word ‘restoration’. An article in the popular ‘wooden boat’ press in the UK some years ago spoke of the superb ‘restoration’ of an 1890s cutter. On closer examination it was clear that, with the exception of some cabin fittings and a few timbers, nothing of the 1890s fabric survived – only the silhouette and volume of the original vessel was restored. Yet this is a common misunderstanding of the process of restoration and a widely accepted outcome for any vessel so treated. 6.2 The Krait – identification of significance and understanding the vessel Following historical research, which revealed a more complete picture of the vessel, a detailed process of inspection and documentation of the fabric was undertaken. The combination of these two activities, and the chronology of changes, led to an ability to identify phases in the life of the vessel and thus an evaluation of the significance of these periods. The concept of significance is nebulous and, though perhaps a bit too rigid and mechanical, the categories given by the various guiding documents provide a sound basis for identifying what it is that makes the vessel important and worthy of retention. �Table 2. Categories of significance from NSW Heritage Office guidelines. CATEGORY HISTORIC NATURE OF SIGNIFICANCE TECHNICAL/ RESEARCH RARITY concerned with the range of historical context concerned with association with persons or events concerned with community regard or esteem Concerned with creative accomplishments or visual impacts concerned with technical accomplishment and research potential concerned with uncommon REPRESENTATIVEN ESS concerned with representativeness of a type or technique HISTORIC ASSOCIATION SOCIAL AESTHETIC The significance of the vessel however goes beyond the intrinsic physical fabric with the categories of social and aesthetic significance providing potential to address wider values and linkages to the community. The esteem in which this particular vessel is currently held is due in part to, and reinforced by, its acquisition into the collection of the Australian War Memorial, an institution with a commemorative as well as a cultural role. In the same way, the support of the community funded its repatriation to Australia forty years ago. It appears that this support has been sustained during that period, the challenge now being to maintain support into the future. More community involvement in the conservation and planning for the Krait may be a strategy to assist this process. 6.3 The Krait - Statement of Significance �A Statement of Significance was written which embodied the significance arising from those categories previously identified. The fishing boat Krait has considerable significance to the military history of special forces in Australia. The ship is a remarkable survivor of Operation Jaywick, and is the only extant vessel which was used by Special Operations Australia during the Second World War and one of few tangible links with this area of military operations during the war, when these operations were in their infancy. The Krait has social significance to the community which drove and largely funded a campaign for its purchase, repatriation and, maintenance and which lobbied for it to be acquired by the Australian War Memorial. As a floating war memorial, the Krait has assumed a status as a kind of sacred relic, enjoying a place in the national psyche as part of the ‘civil religion’ of the ANZAC tradition. 6.4 The Krait – conservation policy Imperatives from the established significance inform policies for future conservation treatments. These need to recognise the various phases of the vessel’s life and the significance of each, postulating treatments which may see some removal or restoration of fabric, previously removed, to helpfully liberate that significance. Likewise at a material level, intrusive elements would be removed if these were damaging, such as rusted fastenings. Ethically, it is recognised that these treatments involve trade-offs, in some cases presenting one phase of the life of the vessel over others and indeed the destruction of evidence through removal of fabric or wear and degradation. As an iterative process the CMP suggests consultation to help refine and decide upon outcomes, and to prevent discussion of issues becoming unnecessarily circular or repetitive. In this way, further and wider consultation may be helpful in the case of the Krait to ensure input from constituencies of support from sections of the community, including for example, personnel in Special Operations, who have a continuing interest in the vessel. It is in this area of community support that the �sustainability of the vessel and its role in telling of the past will be maintained. These elements have been aggregated in separate inventory sheets prepared for each identifiable space on the vessel. For illustration the sheet for the Krait’s engine room is presented to demonstrate the working documents in the hands of staff maintaining the vessel. �Table 1 Example of Inventory sheet – Krait CMP 6.4 ENGINE ROOM SPACE ENGINE ROOM CURRENT USE ENGINE ROOM PREVIOUS USE(S) ENGINE ROOM DESCRIPTION Engine room, circa late 1934, originally fitted with a Deutz diesel engine, this was replaced in 1943 with a Gardner diesel of British manufacture. At this time three auxiliary machines: petrol engine, air compressor and generator were also fitted with associated pipework and electrical systems. DECKHEAD • longitudinal oregon boarding laid over transverse beams with hatch and hinged hatch cover on port side aft • very thick paint system, flaking in parts • engine room deckhouse, timber boarding with sliding glazed clerestory windows, some glazed with perspex. BULKHEADS FORWARD • timber boarding (plywood) behind transverse stainless steel fuel tank with sight glass and filling pipe. AFT • built-in timber bench, for stowage • sliding hatch in timber on centreline • vertical boarding. PORT • engine room telegraph fitted to forward side of hatch • sawn frames on close centres, sistered with through steel fastenings and roves �• heavy continuous stringers shaped and fastened with steel fastenings. STARBOARD • sawn frames on close centres, sistered with through steel fastenings and roves • heavy continuous stringers shaped and fastened with steel fastenings • piping associated with engine cooling system with shipside valves • electrical switchboard fitted forward in way wheelhouse deck. DECK • Gardner 6L3 oil engine fitted with gearbox and associated plumbing and exhaust system • Lister air-cooled generator fitted forward on centreline with associated wiring • battery box fitted forward • plywood deck plates painted green. CANOPY • awning (plywood, hardwood frames) erected over engine room deckhouse. GRP mat laid over edges and butts. Penetrations (2) for main and auxiliary engine exhaust. Grey paint system on top, white gloss below. MOVEABLE ITEMS • two starting handles for the main engine are stowed in the engine room • spanners (2) open ended to take up stuffing box. SIGNIFICANCE The Gardner engine is of exceptional significance. It is well documented as the engine that took the raiding party to Singapore for Operation Jaywick. Various components are missing, the air start mechanism in particular. Missing components should be acquired and fitted. Some parts have the name ‘Gardner’ obliterated and these are of interest, having been allegedly so �treated by Major Lyon in pursuit of the covert nature of the raid (Silver, 1992, p.65). All early fabric is of high significance. This includes but is not necessarily limited to the following elements: structural members of the engine room, particularly the transverse framing and longitudinal stringers and the cabin sole. The engine room deckhouse and associated panelling may date from the period in service with River Estates. Electrical switch board. Fabric of moderate significance: Glazing, engine room telegraph: the telegraph is of post-raid fitting, has been on the vessel for many years and, though intrusive, can be justified on operational grounds and should not be removed. The telegraph repeat in the wheelhouse is also intrusive but should remain. In both cases a small box or cover should be placed over these items when not in use. Communication between wheelhouse and engine room was by voice through the hatch in the aft engine room. Aft built-in shelf. Low significance fabric: fire extinguisher, plywood deck plates, perspex glazing, and stainless fuel tank. Lister diesel engine and generator. PROPOSED CONSERVATION TREATMENT 1. Continue to use the engine room as part of the ship in accordance with the vessel operations policy and other relevant policies. 2. Comply with general conservation policy (Section 5) for the vessel as a whole and for the treatment of fabric under each level of significance. 3. Consider returning the engine room to the Operation Jaywick configuration with the installation of the original pattern of petrol engine, compressor and generator. Additionally, refit air receiver and associated high pressure piping for engine starting service. What remains of the other machinery; diesel generator, switchboard and wiring loom have been fitted since arrival in Australia in 1963. The opportunity exists to refit the auxiliary machinery from the time of the raid as appropriate machines �4. 5. 6. 7. 8. have been procured; a Ruston generator, air compressor and air bottle. These items should be fitted at an appropriate time. Replace plywood floor plates with traditional timber boarding laid transversely. This tank is of recent construction from stainless steel. Sited under the wheelhouse in the upper forward end of the engine room, the tank is intrusive but practical for operational purposes. It should remain, but its high lustre and appearance should be subdued by being enclosed behind panelling. A modification was fitted to allow easier access for fuelling. Though post raid, the deckhouse is of venerable age and demonstrates some interesting joinery. Documentation suggests that it was fitted after the war and has survived substantially intact. This construction should be retained, though where glazing is in perspex, glass should be substituted when possible. The tailshaft was replaced by a modern stainless steel (Aquamet 17) shaft in 1996 to wear and tear. It has been retained and stored. The canopy is a recent (post 1982) fabrication, constructed from marine plywood over a softwood frame. The previous configuration during the raid is not known with any certainty, though it may have been planked with a canvas deck overlay. It should be replaced with a more appropriate canopy when funding allows. �This inventory sheet documents the vessel fabric, then establishes, identifies and grades significance. A more detailed sheet is prepared which documents the fabric down to a component level, and in tabular form states significance and proposed treatment. Documentation of work carried out, traditionally a poorly executed part of the process, has been improved with report writing skills included in in-house training sessions. Early results are pleasing, with the whole process set to be further enhanced with proposed integration into the new ANMM collection management system, giving increased access to vessel records. 7 Staffing of Fleet Section A significant difference to the way in which conservation planning operates with built heritage is that, as owners of heritage vessels, the ANMM employs its own staff of marine artisans to carry out conservation treatments. This has been necessary as sources of workers have contracted in Sydney with the increased rate of traditional boat yard closures, changed technology, the reduction in craft-based training and waterfront redevelopment. These factors have resulted in the dispersal and disappearance of a large class of skilled labour. In the past the ANMM has been able to capitalise on this pool of expertise, however increasingly with these and other facilities gone the Fleet Section has had to increasingly look to itself to perform the work required to maintain the fleet. In light of this and the increased sophistication of approach to vessel conservation, the ANMM commenced a program of training artisans, using the traditional craft-based apprenticeship as a model. This has proven most successful with six graduates of the program in ten years and two currently in training. Trainees attend classes on day release at college in the boatbuilding course where they are exposed to both contemporary and traditional techniques. The training is supplemented with heritage training sessions, and short courses conducted in-house at the ANMM. Recent developments have seen the trainees placed with other ‘host’ employers noted for offering specific services such as decorative painting and brightwork techniques. These activities, in addition to secondment �to senior artisans on ANMM staff have led to a very high level of achievement in recent graduates. 8 Conclusions and the future Following early promise, conservation management plans are to be drawn up for all vessels, both floating and stored dry in the ANMM. This will provide guidance to all involved with conservation procedures and to allow decision making at a strategic level for allocation of scarce funding and resources. Investigation suggests that for the significance of vessels to be sustained, support also needs to be garnered among those constituencies that have a stake in the vessel. The CMP, then, should be drawn up using a collegiate approach from museum professionals, ideally in consultation with stakeholder interest groups to refine and develop the document, as a continuous process. At an operational level the ANMM has a site master plan in place to develop its site to more adequately protect, manage, maintain and display its fleet to visitors. This, coupled with the conservation management planning process and staffing initiatives should place the management of the Fleet at the ANMM on a firmer footing for the future, and ensure the continuation of a traditional ship repair skills base in floating maritime heritage. References Australia ICOMOS. The Burra Charter: the Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of cultural significance (1999), Australia ICOMOS Melbourne. Kerr J.S., The Conservation Plan: A Guide to the Preparation of Conservation plans for Places of European Cultural Significance, National Trust of Australia (NSW), 2000. New South Wales Heritage Office, NSW Heritage ManualAssessing Heritage Significance, Sydney, 2001. �Silver L.R. and Hall T., Krait: the fishing boat that went to war, Sally Milner, Sydney, 1992. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standard for Historic Vessel Preservation Projects, Washington, 1990 � 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 Managing floating heritage: a decade of managing a fleet of historic vessels at the Australian National Maritime Museum Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Steven Adams Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 boats Burra Charter collection management conservation management plan Ethics and Approaches maintenance maritime project management standards training https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/1f669a4cb747f6d00e3ce16459e9cab5.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=cSkK%7EN68shq1ydq2IXU-pyT7numzNEscmj%7EAp66Kfx2yxTZzSSnikt5OTAVEwF7KJyflsCSPqoFzxCr2uDW0g1p3UbNhF%7E8kZr35ZgjsCtGK5W0cpMZ2Kz6HtUS1tS93dPdyHAE9H1jGKzwfkT3RKcruG9QWiZ5glebgXuq62qdtYf8877bDaeYqFCp2KCkDCHZqYS9B0mBXDPEhUj3Qw5c-gj4K6BDTdcO9s3guCfCcEdQef2Bc01aJBK1RCMhWjGq0%7EODkNDo81Nt1rRnGsHr3zk07fWQZ%7E9yilW8IFp1E5ZPUlUcsrHvs4VbCEnDKZv3%7Eu%7E0K%7Ew496rreAewp4Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM e9977a2109d34311d7105b9cb89ff91f PDF Text Text Conservation and large technological artefacts: a curatorial perspective John White Australian War Memorial My name is John White. I’m one of two senior curators of technology at the Australian War Memorial - I look after things that fly and float; the other curator, Mike Cecil, looks after all the land based technology. I started here in 1987, and I’m going to talk about some of the major changes in the last twenty-five years in the ways we have approached large technology objects. The Memorial’s Act calls for the organisation (the Australian War Memorial) to develop, maintain and exhibit a collection of material of national significance. Now, the significance of the collection is not some generalized notion. It’s not that the Memorial is important and therefore the Memorial’s holdings must be important, it’s that the collection actually contains the most extraordinary material. It contains many items which are really significant parts of the Australian National Collection; think of G for George, think about the midget submarine. There are many other items – not just talking about large technology but across the board – which are of national significance (and indeed of international significance because they are items produced overseas), which because of the vagaries of history might either be unique or possibly the best and most original examples remaining in the world. It’s quite a responsibility to manage a collection like that. Now in many cases these objects were chosen because of their history. For instance in 1944, whilst the D-Day invasion was raging and Britain was fighting to take back the continent - working with the Americans and the Allied Corps - somewhere in the infrastructure there was a person who was a representative of the Memorial choosing a Spitfire for preservation. G for George was selected for preservation by mid-1944. So in the midst of all that turbulence there was some astonishing forward thinking going on about what would actually constitute an item of significance which needed to be preserved. Our Messerschmitt Bf-109 was selected by the British forces as one of a small group of German aircraft, not for evaluation for flying, not to understand the technology, but as museum display objects. And to that end the British decided not to paint markings and serial numbers on the items, so that that Bf-109 arrived in Australia virtually untouched and again, through the vagaries of history, has come down to the Memorial in the present day in the most extraordinarily original condition. It is the only one of its type to be in that condition in the world (except perhaps one from a lake), but in more general terms the only surviving front line Second World War German military aircraft apparently in a completely untouched condition. An extraordinary thing to find here in Australia. Now curators charged with this kind of problem have to do some careful thinking. When I arrived here in 1987 I was faced with a pretty daunting situation. We had poor storage for our large technology collection, both in terms of cleanliness and condition. We had a store called Duntroon. Duntroon was a place where cats went to die - there were literally dead animals inside objects! There was material falling from the ceiling, dust, there were enthusiastic persons living nearby who considered it was a challenge �to break in and steal things and had been doing so for decades. We had objects the size of G for George and yet our total aircraft handling gear consisted of a couple of broken jacks, a couple of stands and some automotive gear. We relied heavily on outside help from the Services and in some cases private individuals to assist us to move objects. In terms of collection care we were at such an embryonic stage of taking care of our material that there were a lot of problems. We had people driving cranes and lifting objects who had never handled an aircraft before, and they certainly didn’t know about our aircraft. They didn’t understand the importance of looking after a museum aircraft. We had a lot of little accidents, a lot of handling problems. We had poor building access – the Memorial’s buildings, opened in 1941 and later extended, had been gradually built in. In the hall where the Lancaster was displayed we had to bring in a crane with a 10T capacity to put in a La Rhone rotary engine – we didn’t have a door large enough to bring an item that size into the building without a crane. We also had tremendous limitations on workshop space; we had limited funds and limited access to them. When I arrived we had six aircraft projects which had ground to a halt. They’d ground to a halt for reasons including – • we didn’t have treatments developed to apply to those objects; • the contractors had their own problems and were unable to carry on with the projects; • we were dealing with contractors who proved to be very “interesting” people and one of the first things I had to do was to break the contract arrangements and flee in the other direction! So as a curator looking at all the aspects of what we needed to do to manage the collection, I had to look at my resources to see what were the most important tools that I had to hand and even at that time the Memorial had pretty much unparalleled resources in conservation , both intellectual and in terms of the development of the new conservation buildings here. Now, people joke about curators and conservators – how they get on and whether they talk – there’s a perception that curators and conservators often come at objects from different perspectives and have different ideas of what is important and different ideas of what the management of those objects involves. But I looked at that conservation resource and thought – how can I apply that and make that work for the long-term management of the collection? Now, think about what this management problem involves. It is long-term preservation. There is no statute of limitations in the Memorial’s Act. It says we will keep and maintain this collection; it doesn’t say for ten years or fifteen years, or a hundred years, but forever… and forever is a very very long time. As an example, in 1987 we had a P51 Mustang. A very original aircraft – it had survived as a technical training aid and retained a tremendous amount of original fabric - surface finishes (including the original manufacturer’s transfers), the seat cushion with “US Army Air force” in the cockpit - and the object had grown old gracefully because it had not been outside and it had been relatively well cared for. We had an Avro 504 on loan to a large airline company. They’d had a bit of a problem and had recovered the fuselage, but the wings and the tail plane retained fabric which as far as we can determine goes right back to 1918 and is still doing a remarkably good job. �We had the Lancaster and we had some volunteers working it, and we really weren’t going very far with that project because we were pouring an enormous amount of effort into some very small aspects of the project and not stepping back from it to take a good look at the machine. We had, as was mentioned, the Sea Furys out on loan to the navy, and the navy were running into problems with them. So it wasn’t actually a very encouraging scene. I spent a lot of time going through those projects and identifying ways in which we could proceed. We cancelled the Tiger Moth – we went and got another one later on. We cancelled most of the existing work programs on the Lancaster and dropped back to do a great deal of research on the machine which carried on for some years; and it’s interesting to note that we started researching it in 1987 and completed it in 2003 which gives you an idea of the complexity of the project that we undertook on the Lancaster. The Mustang – we were able to take what we had as a starting point for the aircraft and add more original parts back into it; not parts from that machine, but parts that we knew were new production spares for Mustangs. We managed to find a pair of wings for it (the original wings had been cut) which were from the same production batch as the original wings, and fit those to the machine. So at that stage we were picking up on elements of conservation logic to say “We’ve got an original object – how do we preserve those features and how can we augment those features and still retain the character of the item?” Now, one of the most important things that I loved about conservation was that conservators were very relaxed about distressed objects. Objects are often overrestored and the Memorial’s collection had these objects which, because of various historical reasons, had not been touched in decades. We had a tremendous opportunity to save a lot of material which had been delivered to us by what was – on the face of it – neglect, but which in fact turned out to be very fortuitous. So looking at those machines, we did some experiments. The Avro 504 – how would we preserve that eighty-year-old fabric? We looked at ways of retaining areas of original fabric - relaxing damaged areas, re-doping damaged areas; and a lot of ideas which we were thinking about in that first stage reached their first practical application in that machine and some of the other projects. With the Sea Fury our basic problem was that we had aimed our restoration concept in the wrong direction. The initial idea was that navy would take the three aircraft (including their one) and use the best parts from all three to form one flyable machine and put together a machine for the Memorial from what was left. After a while we realized that navy’s flying aircraft was not the most important thing for the Memorial to come out of that group of aircraft. We had to get back for the Memorial a good, displayable machine that addressed some of our collection requirements, and was not what was left over after another major restoration project. It took years to articulate that and to get that message through the various channels of communication between the Services and the Memorial, but with a lot of goodwill and a lot of rethinking on everyone’s part we got the machines returned to Canberra pretty much as they had left - although they had been extensively dismantled and damaged in some minor ways �through that dismantling. But we got them back here and started from scratch with a new project. Conservation influenced in this development process very strongly. From 1987 to perhaps 2000 our ideas about how to handle these objects progressed in steps. We would try something, experiment with new techniques and treatments. We experimented with the idea of putting on display an object which was half conserved and half restored. For instance when you look at the Beaufort you will notice that there are features on that aircraft which are clearly fifty years old and features which are clearly last week. But when you step back from the object they don’t really fight against each other. And the idea is that when you look at that machine you know – deep in your heart – that you are looking at an object which is real. And I like that notion of preserving things which are real. When I first came here I climbed out of the Lancaster – which at that stage had a very nice coat of paint on it but which was not very accurate because it was based on the instructions from the Airfix kit – and I was asked by a member of the public “Is this thing real?” And it had never occurred to me to ask this question of whether the Lancaster was actually real. And I stepped out of the aircraft and turned around and looked at it and it dawned on me that it could have actually been a very large Series 8 Airfix kit from the appearance of it. It was too neat. It had no flaws on it that you could see. There was nothing which spoke from it about the fact that people flew it eighty-nine times over German occupied territory, that it was shot at, that it was rebuilt, that it is the outcome of a very complex development and mass production process. You’ll be hearing more about these notions that we found from looking at the machine and that our conservation staff did such tremendous work to help identify and document. It was from those kind of findings that we developed a new way of looking at that Lancaster and a new way – for me as a curator- of understanding what that aircraft actually was, and how it appeared at certain key parts of its history. Other conservation ethical points which embedded themselves in our work were the basic standards for accommodation. Believe me – having worked now for some years in an area where all our storage is either air-conditioned or controlled to some extent, and we have objects which aren’t covered in dust and don’t have dead cats in them – believe me that’s the most amazing step forward because we are not retracing our steps all the time. Once we work on an object and do significant conservation and restoration treatment on it, its rate of deterioration is then very minor. We can go onto other things without having to find, two years later, that we’ve got to do large amounts of work over again. This is very important from a planning point of view over the last seventeen years I’ve been here I’ve seen seventeen aircraft projects completed. That’s a phenomenal rate for a place with a relatively small budget (until recent years) for major conservation or restoration works. And I do like that notion of “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it”, and I’ve always added to that “If you do fix it you can’t go back” and “The object is not going anywhere fast, so take the time to have a decent look at it.” Aged objects are, I’ve come to realize, legitimately interesting and valuable within themselves. Mention has been made that our sampling of our visitors to the Memorial shows that our visitors do understand when they are looking at a real thing. Now, it’s possible someone might say “Perhaps if it was completely restored and polished and �looked fantastic, that would be better. People would be even more impressed.” But the strange thing is that even among general visitors that is not the case. People understand and appreciate a sense of history. The gentleman who asked me about the Lancaster did not ask me about the Spitfire which was sitting next to it, which had not been repainted in fifty years and which is still one of our most extraordinary objects. An object needs to be known by a curator, and conservators, with their detailed cleaning, stabilization and examination of objects, open up tremendous windows for a curator to understand just what their item is. When we looked at G for George we found tons of material evidence inside the machine of its construction, its operational use and things that had happened to it post-war. All these things were things we needed to know so that I, as a curator, could look at that object, know what it was and then say “It is ‘this’, ‘these’ are the things we can do with it, ‘these’ are the features we need to be stressing in our interpretation of it and ‘these’ are the material evidences of strikes, battle damage, use-wear and other things that would be interesting to a member of the public as part of interpretation”. And the other thing that I really like about conservation is that it presents me, as a curator, with lots of options for how we can deal with an object. For instance we were working on a Mosquito. When I arrived here it was proposed - because we were half way through a wing rebuild – that we would continue with the wing rebuild but that we might preserve original material in the fuselage, which was in very poor shape. Then it swapped over and we were going to leave the wing alone. But we were able to develop a way of injecting the timber structure so that we actually kept large amounts of the very badly deteriorated wooden wing in a way that we had been told previously was not possible. We not only kept the original material, we cut the amount of time needed to bring that object to a stable and displayable state by two thirds. Now for dollar reasons that’s of enormous importance if you’re trying to work out – as a curator – how to get a project through from the beginning to the end. Conservation offered us options in terms of how we repainted objects - putting preservative layers on and painting over the top and inpainting damaged materials but leaving other areas intact. Because the objects were so large we could be a bit flexible – perhaps we would preserve in its original state one part of an object which had typical features across a lot of the structure, and in other areas we could do more aesthetic and more restoration based treatments to bring the object together as a whole so that it could be seen as a complete object. The idea is that we both had our cake and ate it too, and conservation ideas gave a lot of assistance on how we could develop a project along those lines. So in my experience here conservation has been one of the most powerful influences on how we’ve handled this collection and – apart from bucks of course – the most powerful tool. I talked to you about the situation we had when I arrived, but look at the situation now. As a curator looking after the aircraft collection and most of our naval items, almost everything is under cover, almost nothing is sitting outside deteriorating that isn’t robust enough to deal with those conditions. We have handling gear that allows us to pick up objects and move them without touching the object itself. We are one of the few places that, if given the job of dismantling a Lancaster, we could use our own gear, do it in-house and have the thing apart in probably five weeks if it was an emergency. When we are programming projects and we are coming up with concepts for how an object can look, I have the tremendous support from a �conservation ethical point of view, of the notion that it’s worthwhile preserving original features. And not only is that a good idea for the members of the public from what we know about their tastes, but there are serious economic advantages from adopting a conservation approach to a project. And these influences echo on – they’re now so commonplace in the way we handle these large technology objects that it’s been interesting sitting down and teasing out some of the elements of approaches we take for granted now which just weren’t part of the agenda in the early eighties. And I think it’s an indicator of how far we’ve come that we’ve made those kinds of steps. � 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 and large technological artefacts: a curatorial perspective Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource John White Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 authenticity collection management conservation curatorship Ethics and Approaches project management restoration https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/7f3c56c4ed95af11eed2ab9aff0df124.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=UdjqwCuP1JzSyxCkBtq1JIZlKaim30GykUp1rLVzun4N3pVFNmKvmC336xY%7EQS6ANDbOHHyoHvH0vKRwKfAiB4Au%7En-DswM25gwx%7EVJWYY5qWxNzJUBSVY8JJI8-vN-0P7me4dTfaGulwqM8%7EkarGDo72-6IaFw6FBaGnL463z7f4YXIVGpDoCVXH1Sc69Xwtlb2fUtvueBS0kGikDEjq7oSnbQcZIdzyckFO9zjj9%7EAhlFwMM5o-hexo5YvMleTcoFaqFjWeH3I2g-54GhOqJwkvJ64paKrlGJcBE2WVigwAO8sSeY16XeIP5nJOr7jKx5288NdlWFLbNz5KYeqkA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 4455c2d2c0a510de4dc54eec11816cb2 PDF Text Text Historical trains invaded by fluffy stuff. Mould issues in six historical train interiors: treatment and follow-up. Kaat Sneiders Marjolijn Debulpaep kaat.sneiders@kikirpa.be marjolijn.debulpaep@kikirpa.be Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage (KIK-IRPA) Preventive Conservation Unit Conservation-Restoration Department Parc du Cinquantenaire 1 1000 Brussels Belgium www.kikirpa.be After their extraordinary history, six magnificent train wagons lie in a workshop declared unusable by the fire department. The owner decides to hermetically seal the wagons against light and - capital mistake – heating as well. This awakens incubated populations and they infest every nook and cranny of the interiors. The organisms play a double role: of aggressors and of saviours. Saviours because this prodigious infestation so alarms experts that a conservation project is ultimately launched. The wagon doors are thrown open and we - the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage in Brussels (KIK-IRPA) – become the next witnesses to this unique heritage.   The interiors of two historical train wagons From left to right: 1901, 1901 and 1905 © KIK-IRPA, Brussels The interiors of four historical train wagons From left to right: 1939 – 1912 – 1939 – 1939 �Introduction Six unique historical train interiors that belong to the cultural heritage of the National Railway Company of Belgium (SNCB) were affected by mould about five years ago. This mould problem arose due to a combination of poor storage conditions and rash decisions. Four of the six carriages are still in the workshop that was rejected as unusable by the fire department a few years ago. The personnel were transferred, meaning that surveillance was at risk: this was in fact why the carriages were totally sealed. The heating in the workshop was also switched off after some time and this gave rise to grave moisture problems: a veritable paradise for mould. The SNCB‟s prestigious project “Train World” (Belgian national museum), where two of the six carriages were to be the showpiece at the end of September 2015, forced a reassessment, and the realisation of the need for decontamination and conservation quickly provided the required impetus. The concerned department within the SNCB started looking for a solution. Should they “clean” the unique articles using their own personnel, or should they obtain advice from external specialists? At the end of 2012, the SNCB took the plunge and commissioned the preventive conservation unit of the KIK-IRPA to carry out the job. Two years earlier, the SNCB had itself refurbished a wagon under an international loan-for-use arrangement. That they nevertheless contacted the KIK-IRPA to tackle this problem, demonstrates a new approach to handling their historical heritage. An in situ visit quickly revealed the complexity of the problem and the approach to it. The storage location was poorly equipped.1 Concrete decay, holes and leaks in the roof made the professional preservation of such train interiors impossible. The owners of the SNCB were aware of this, but shifting the trains was obviously not an option, considering the absence of good storage spaces within its own organisation. Shifting carriages that had not been in operation since 1976 would also be a very cumbersome and risky move. The explosion of mould growth had therefore to be stabilised in situ and had to be combated with a thorough-going approach. Of course, a second problem was related to the complexity of this type of heritage: large objects (wagons) containing small, often difficult to access object parts (compartments), with a multitude of different types of materials (wood, marquetry, paintings, textiles, glass, ceramic materials, metal, linoleum, etc.). It would be impossible to find one single specialist who would have all the required knowledge of the materials involved in this contract. A comprehensive interdisciplinary team would now have to look for a solution in close collaboration with each other. The report of our first site visit described our vision of the future approach, and presented a concrete plan of action. In view of the complexities involved, the SNCB requested us for a meeting with all the concerned managers to provide the required clarifications and explanations. During this key moment, KIK-IRPA made it clear that we should no (longer) approach the trains as a functional object, but as historical heritage. We were requested to coordinate the decontamination project. Before we could start on this contract, we emphatically underlined the crucial importance of care after the work had been executed. Something that is unjustly often overlooked. The large budgets that would have to be cleared for coordination and execution were of such magnitude that it would be irresponsible not to take these observations into account. Efforts toward ensuring better internal conservation and management in the future, and looking for a new storage location for the carriages was our precondition for further collaboration. 1 Building class 3 – building-type: non-isolated more or less closed (steel)constructions – climate class C/D (ASHRAE 2007): Ankersmit B., Klimaatwerk. Richtlijnen voor het museale binnenklimaat, Amsterdam University Press 2009, p. 28 and 87. p. 2 / 20 �With the start of the climate measurements in the depot and the wagons, we made our offer, based on work phases. We formulated a detailed procedural sequence comprising five major phases, distributed over nine months: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Stabilising the extent of the mould attack A detailed preliminary study (Mechanical) removal of the mould: conservation of the interiors by an external firm Follow-up of the renovation of the exterior of the carriages Risk analysis relating to the preservation and future storage location of the carriages Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 PHASE 1 Dehumidification PHASE 2 Taking samples of the mould Documentation prior to treatment condition reports Cleaning tests PHASE 3 Drafting specifications Award of the contract Kick-off meeting Tests: Cleaning Fixation Treatment proposal Training moment Treatment Evaluation and final delivery Reporting PHASE 4 PHASE 5 Site visits Collection of information Measurements Report recommendations Relocation of four carriages  Initial list of the planned work At the start of the project in April 2013, we had planned for a duration of nine months for the entire project. Its complexity - but more significantly the cumbersome structure within the SNCB, ensured that we suffered massive delays. Two years later, the project is still not fully complete. Two of the six carriages have been shifted to Train World and a solution is still to be found for the remaining four. Phase 1: Stabilising the extent of the mould attack The exponential mould growth had to be slowed down immediately. In January 2013, we commenced an initial emergency intervention in which air circulation was generated inside the trains. The compartment doors and the small swing windows were opened. Apart from ventilation, the relative humidity (RH) in the carriages also had to be brought down to below 60%, a critical limit for mould growth.2 2 http://www.conservationphysics.org/arnemag/arnemagn1.php p. 3 / 20 � The first climate measurements were conducted in the depot between 12/04/2013 and 24/05/2013 The dehumidification with strict climate control was carried out in collaboration with the external firm BEPA (via public tender). In view of the long term exposure of the interior elements to a humid climate (around 72% RH), the dehumidification had to be carried out with all the necessary caution. The RH had to be reduced by a maximum of 3% per 24 hours, in order to allow the climate-sensitive materials and objects within the carriages the time to adjust. The RH in the carriages was gradually reduced from 73.5% to 53% over a span of 30 days. 53% RH was taken as the setting point and the average value was selected since in all probability this would reduce the risk of mechanical damage to the most vulnerable textile materials, veneer, modern materials, etc... First, the dehumidifiers were adjusted to lower the RH value, by 3%, every four days. From 60% onwards, the RH fell by 1.5% every four days. After reaching the target value of 53% RH, it had to be maintained, and ventilation and a constant air flow became extremely important. During the dehumidification, we also checked the mould activity by taking mould samples at various times. Although we always found positive mould activity, there was lower germination of the mould spores in each case. In the beginning, germination was found even after two days; after 10 months of dehumidification, germination was only found after every three to four days. The conclusion that may cautiously be drawn from this is that the dry atmosphere had its effect on the mould activity.3 3 Brokerhof, A. , Van Zanen, B. & den Teuling, A. 2007, Fluffy Stuff: Integrated control of mould in archives, Instituut Collectie Nederland, Amsterdam; Guild, S. & Macdonald, M. 2003, Mould prevention and collection recovery: Guidelines for heritage collections, in Technical Bulletin 26, Canadian Conservation Institute, p. 23. p. 4 / 20 �Phase 2: A detailed preliminary study General The complicated and comprehensive project made an extensive preliminary investigation absolutely necessary. Many questions had to be answered before a real beginning could be made. How extensive was the damage? Was there only surface mould? What were the potential treatment methods that we should opt for? Who would be able to take up the contract, and to whom should it be assigned? A professional cleaning company or a conservator-restorer, a train technician, etc.? How must this cleaning contract be approached and executed? Should we partially approach the carriages as a functional object that should be dismantled and repainted, or as a work of art in which there would be minimum intervention, and reversibility would be a top priority? Were there still other (ancillary) problems that might arise due to the high relative humidity? What about having a better storage location and aftercare in the long-term? We realised that the management, conservation and presentation of historic rolling stock was by no means an easy task, but we did not doubt the premise. The wagons were no longer functional objects but part of historical heritage, in which the authenticity of the material was central. This appraisal determined the approach to the task. Air analysis and photographs At the start of the preliminary study, the climate in the depot and in other carriages was continuously monitored and thereafter analysed and interpreted. The results of mould samples and air analyses were mapped. The air analysis made it clear that the mould growth had assumed great proportions. The concentration of mould spores in the air (number of viable units per cubic metre or UFV/m³) was far above normal values in some cases. Where 800 UFV/m³ is the standard, a value of 1,500 UFV/m³ was found in some compartments. Individual protection in the carriages was extremely important!4 The KIK-IRPA photographers photographed the interiors extensively. The mould growth was also documented in detail.  Mould growth in the sleeping compartments (mattresses) Working photos. © KIK-IRPA, Brussels 4 Disposable half face respirators with the finest filter quality (FFP3), nitrile hand gloves and cleanroom overalls with hood and Tyvec boot covers. p. 5 / 20 � Mould growth on a brolly sheet  Mould growth on the linoleum floor under a bed Condition reports We drew up detailed condition reports for each carriage and compartment. These reports stated the degree and the location of the mould attack in each case and ultimately provided a clear picture of the degree of contamination. With the information from the preliminary investigation, we then drew up a detailed treatment plan.  Page from the condition report: the colours represent the degree of mould attack, with red representing the most severely affected areas, while orange represents the moderately affected areas Cleaning tests We conducted in situ tests of cleaning products and methods with a team of ten conservator-restorers, each specialising in their own disciplines (glass, textile, wood, metal, painting, modern and ceramic materials). These indicated how stubborn the mould was and how it could be removed. p. 6 / 20 � Restorers with protective clothing at work during cleaning tests Working photos. © KIK-IRPA, Brussels After one day of in situ work, we realised that the method of working was more complicated than had earlier been imagined: what about the direction in which work would be conducted within the trains, how should the extremely fragile materials, carpets and corroded metals be handled? How were movable objects such as mattresses, sheets and blankets to be treated? Consistently working according to a well-defined and fixed method appeared to us to be of crucial importance. Material Method Material Solvent Observations Dry cleaning Swab / Good result, the entire mould infestation and the starting layer was removed after cleaning; during the cleaning, the necessary pressure had to be applied to the material Labour-intensive 1.2 Dry cleaning + disinfection with ethanol Swab Ethanol Good result; somewhat better than (1.1) 1.3 Wet cleaning with ethanol Swab Ethanol Good result; several repetitions required to remove the residue; faster than (1.1) and (1.2) 1.1 Metal  Example of cleaning tests on metal, with photograph Working photos. © KIK-IRPA, Brussels  Detailed photographs: some examples of cleaning tests on metal, linoleum and wood/marquetry p. 7 / 20 �Procedural strategy Based on a procedural strategy, we therefore laid down certain requirements:  For each material present, we required a conservator-restorer with the relevant specialisation  We emphasised mechanical and dry cleaning for the removal of the general surface mould. We used wet cleaning and disinfection wherever possible and necessary.  General wear and tear through use had to be respected.  Only in case of material loss with heavily corroded or damaged objects was additional conservation permitted. Coffee stains, water damage, impact damage, etc. were not to be restored, removed or retouched. In the preliminary study, we envisaged that a full team of conservator-restorers would have to work in every carriage. But five conservators simultaneously working in a small sleeping compartment of 3m2, was found to be a physical impossibility. Interdisciplinary and cross material work was the only solution. Each team member was required to train his colleagues according to his specialisation. Each specialist remained liable for his material type throughout the term of the contract. Follow-up Neither the carriages nor the interiors could be dismantled. We therefore had no idea what lay behind the walls and under the floors. After removing the surface mould and after disinfection (for example, of metal, glass, ceramic materials, etc.), the carriages would never be fully mould free. Coordinating and following up the execution thoroughly seemed to be the only thing that the project coordinator could control. Apart from follow-up, the success of the handling of a mould infestation of this magnitude also depended on the precision and the goodwill of the conservator-restorer and his team. Will the restorer, after working for four months in difficult circumstances, maintain concentration and carefully vacuum clean one spot in various directions? From preliminary study to tender specifications In order to reduce the risk of unrecognised and inexperienced conservator-restorers, we employed strict contract award criteria when describing the public contract (issued by the SNCB). In the tender specifications partially drawn up by us, the contract award criterion of „quality of the execution proposal‟ was set on par with the contract award criteria „price‟. Companies that did not score well on the quality component were thereby excluded from further participation. The entire contract was sub-divided into six different lots. Each carriage was treated as a separate lot. The small firms or associated conservator-restorers could also participate. We thought this to be important because we felt that communication with a small company would be easier for us and would take place on a less „commercial‟ footing than would be the case with a large firm. Here as well, we had to revise our initial conception. Ultimately, this consideration was found insignificant and a large firm was awarded the contract. p. 8 / 20 �Smoke generator treatment In order to tackle the problem of our inability to totally clear the mould from the carriages, we looked for a method/agent with which we could disinfect the carriages in bulk. Through colleagues, we found out about using smoke generating canisters.5 Smoke generator treatment involves exposing moulds in a particular area to smoke containing the fungicide Imazalil or Enilconazole. The advantage of the smoke generator method is that large rooms of up to 50m³ can be treated at one go, without having to manipulate each object separately. Furthermore, smoke generating canisters are used in the animal world for the prevention of the Aspergillus infection, which is of the same mould species as the one found in the wagons. All these advantages encouraged us to investigate whether smoke generating canisters could be used to make the train interiors mould free. A test phase was introduced around the following questions:  Is a residue left behind after the test?  Can the smoke kill mould even in difficult to reach places?  Does the smoke generating canister cause any irreversible damage to the interior of the carriages?  Smoke generating canister in operation during a test in a compartment of a carriage The smoke generating canister was tested in a small and closed part of a carriage. (see fig.) Before lighting the wick, ARA kit (swab) samples of the mould were taken from various places in the test zone. After the smoke test, samples were taken again. The visible precipitate that was left behind after the test was negligible. The mould sample showed that the smoke generating canister had been effective. The samples that had been positive before the test, showed negative results after the smoke generator treatment. Furthermore, no visible damage such as discoloration, shrinkage or expansion of timber, or heat spots was seen. Possibly, the precipitation was less visible due to the already existing layer of dust, dirt and mould. The smoke generating canisters had so far been found to produce positive results. The mould completely inactive, thereby reducing the risk of re-infestation. Further, more thorough laboratory research into the composition and effect of the residue was planned as our next phase. 6 Unfortunately, the „Clinafarm Smoke‟ smoke generating canister was transferred from one pharmaceutical company to another in late 2012. As soon as the stocks of Clinafarm Smoke were 5 Smoke genereting canisters are manufactured for veterinary applications, more particulary for use in pens to kill pathogenic mould. The composition can be found in the Clinafarm Smoke™ directions for use. 6 The same questions have to be raised for the use of smoke generating canisters in archives, sacristies, etc. For contaminated manuscipts for example, the risk of deposition can not be accepted. p. 9 / 20 �exhausted, it could not be found anywhere. A change in the registration following the company takeover was the reason for this. As a result, we were unable to use smoke generating canisters anymore and its use for cultural heritage had to be placed “on hold”. We hope to resume this research during 2016, as soon as the change in the registration is completed. Phase 3: (Mechanical) removal of the mould: conservation of the interiors by an external firm The external firm - Helicon Conservation Support - specialising in preventive conservation and calamities was awarded the entire contract. The collaboration between this external (service) provider and the KIK-IRPA commenced on 1st October 2014. During the kick-off meeting, the terms of the contract were clearly defined: the team, the planning and the treatment were discussed and we established the delivery protocol in order to prevent misunderstandings. Work could finally be resumed! The appointed conservator-restorers, who were from various disciplines, investigated the interiors in situ. They started testing their own cleaning tests. They proposed a treatment for each material that was in line with our cleaning tests. A transfer of materials knowledge between the various restorers and the ultimate group of executing contractors took place. The carriages were taken up by a permanent team of three highly enthusiastic conservator-restorers. The same method was consistently used for the six carriages: from top to bottom (from the ceiling to the floor), compartment by compartment and together in the direction of the ventilation flow of the dehumidifiers. They started work wearing full protection, equipped with a museum vacuum cleaner with HEPA filter7, a small bristle brush and a micro-fibre cloth. They cleaned the same surface several times and in various directions. Modern materials such as linoleum, plastic, Bakelite and rubber were dry cleaned or cleaned with demineralised water. Hard materials such as metal, glass and ceramic materials were disinfected with alcohol. Difficult to reach places such as behind ventilation grilles and heating elements were disinfected using an alcohol mist. The practical work in the carriages lasted six months, of which one month went into preparatory work and one carriage every two weeks to three weeks. Unforeseen problems The time between the preliminary investigation (April 2013) and the ultimate start of the work (October 2014) was 18 months. Other biological infestations developed as they had had the time to grow. The few moths that we found in April 2013 had multiplied during the 18 months. They had been feasting on all the rich textiles, particularly the carpets. This deterioration was primarily to be found under the beds and in difficult to reach places, due to which this problem was difficult to detect. As a result of the insect damage, the top layer of the carpets was in a fragile state. (see next fig.) 7 HEPA stands for Hith Efficiency Particulate Air filter of High Efficiency Particulate Absorbing filter. It applies to every appliance that is capable of filtering at least 99,97% of the absorbed particles with a diameter greater than or equal to 0,3µm p. 10 / 20 � Holes caused by moth damage  Mould attack In view of the impairment and the risk of material loss, the carpets were not vacuumed immediately. It was decided to dismantle the carpets and to remove them from the carriages. A deep freeze treatment became necessary, as well as a more extensive conservation. The entire team evaluated the moth problem, and decided not to use major pesticides such as gassing at this stage. With the winter period on the horizon, the activity and productivity of the moths was expected to reduce considerably. In addition, the cleaning of the interiors would possibly halve the moth population. A good and strict check-up of the interiors after the cleaning would turn out to be of crucial importance. Gamma radiation or deep freeze drying? The executing contractors requested us for permission to use all gamma radiation on all the movable objects that were vulnerable to mould and moths. We were reluctant because after treatment, the objects would be returned to a non-irradiated area and could have adverse effects such as fibre attenuation (and accelerated aging) – something that could not be underestimated.8 In consultation with the executing contractor, we took a decision to use gamma radiation on some of the mattresses that remained unseen during the inspections. The mattresses were heavily contaminated on the outside (see fig. p.5), but we were unable to view the condition of the interior of the same. All mattresses were again to be packed in kraft paper and cloth, after treatment – according to the original. Protected from air, light and ventilation, they would also continue to remain unseen during a future inspection round. The risk of the re-emergence of the mould attack was very high. The fact that a deep freeze treatment cost almost as much as the gamma radiation treatment, was another significant reason. The fragile carpets on the other hand would have to be freeze dried. Ventilation flow All movable objects were removed from the carriages to the extent possible, and treated in the external restoration workshop of the executing contractor. The emptying of the carriages increased 8 Havermans, J., Hadeel, A.A. & De Bruin, G. 2005, Gammastralen contra schimmels: Een gezonde oplossing voor bedreigd archief- en bibliotheekmateriaal, in CR: interdisciplinair vakblad voor conservering en restauratie, p. 35-37. p. 11 / 20 �the workability in the small train compartments. The ventilation flow of the dehumidifier that extended from one end of the carriage to the other, was thereby increased. (see the diagram below) When removing the mould, a good ventilation system was found to be extremely important. The executing contractor proposed the creation of three zones within the ventilation flow. A clean zone, a working zone and an infected zone. The clean zone was the zone that had been disinfected and cleaned, and entry into it after completion of work was prohibited. In the working zone, work was ongoing, and it was the location where all the required materials were stocked. The infected zone was the only access route to the working zone, and the untreated area was part of the workflow. Carriage Dehumidifier  Entrance of the pulse tube of the dehumidifier to the carriage  Diagram of the ventilation flow in a carriage: red represents the pulsed air, blue represents the discharged humid and contaminated air Phase 4: Follow-up of the renovation of the exterior of the trains The two carriages that had to be sent to „Train World‟, had to be worked on along the outer side. Dust, mould, grime and rust had to be removed. The SNCB decided to do this part of the work itself. The wagons delivered were to be disconnected from their dehumidifiers and shifted to a clean workshop without climate control in order to be worked on by the train mechanics. This caused us some anxiety. After measurements, the workshop was found to have an ideal museum climate of 19°C and 50% RH. Through intensive communication with the mechanics and technicians, we worked again on mental reorientation. These historic carriages could not be treated in the same manner as present-day carriages, and aggressive cleaning agents were to be avoided. Thus for example, the textile exterior walls had to be cleaned with a vacuum cleaner with HEPA filter, and parts that were contaminated by mould had to be disinfected with ethanol. The roofs of the trains were repainted in their original colours. Phase 5: Risk analysis relating to the preservation and future storage location of the carriages Rolling heritage is not simply to be placed in some forgotten corner of a depot. These mastodons not only require space but also the maintenance they deserve as historical heritage. p. 12 / 20 �The SNCB is struggling with lack of space and has no suitable depot available to it. In addition, it does not (as yet) have a professional team dedicated to taking care of historical carriages. Two of the ills that plague the heritage sector cropped up: absence of space and of money. For this reason, we prepared an extensive advisory report in which we described the general collection requirements. We wanted to establish a clear view of what an ideal depot for such carriages should look like, and the criteria that the owner should apply when looking for a new storage location. We drew up a list of collection requirements, based on the most significant risks and hazards - the ten well-known agents of deterioration9. Everything was defined: at the level of the location, the building, the storage space, the carriages themselves, and the conservation policy. With the ten agents in the backs of our minds, we succeeded in defining general collection requirements, and action points for the long-term preservation of the carriages. Climate, ventilation, contamination, light, maintenance, inspection and safety were discussed. In view of the mould problem, we were of the opinion that climate (but especially high RH) shall always be the greatest damage-causing factor. In case of poor climatological conditions, there is a great risk of new mould explosions. With the help of small tips and action points, such as isolating doors, connecting a heating system, moisture buffering, etc., it is possible to achieve some improvement in their existing depots. The effect of light should also not be underestimated. Many materials in these carriages are extremely sensitive to light: wallpaper, textiles, carpets, upholstered furniture, natural rubber, veneer, pine, etc. A good museum lighting system tailor-made to the requirements must be ensured in Train World. An attempt was made to find our golden mean between maximum permissible luminance and aesthetic lighting requirements, in collaboration with the designers. We proposed the use of motion detectors in the museum, customised according to the lighting in the trains. Preconditions were laid down for access to the public and personnel and for the staging of events in the compartments. We looked for suitable and budget-friendly solutions for shutter ventilation and contamination. A maintenance and inspection plan was worked out. The better future preservation of the carriages primarily depends on the employees responsible for the same. Windows, doors, tables and floors cannot simply be cleaned with standard cleaning products. Through regular inspections, it will be possible to prevent calamities and limit damage to materials. Special attention should also be given to a future Integrated Pest Management plan. In spite of our efforts to moderate the advisory report, it was still seen to be ambitious. But as a result of this report and the intensive collaboration of two and a halve years (SNCB and KIK-IRPA), we were requested to provide aftercare through monitoring and inspections for at least one year. The climate in Train World shall be evaluated and wherever necessary, adjusted. We shall prepare a clear sequence of operations for the maintenance and inspection rounds. The sensitisation will be increased through the request to arrange for training of some staff members of the SNCB and Train World so that they can gradually take over the task of aftercare. 9 Preventive Conservation and Agents of Deterioration, in Canadian Conservation Institute: https://www.cciicc.gc.ca/resources-ressources/agentsofdeterioration-agentsdedeterioration/index-eng.aspx, accessed 06/08/2015. p. 13 / 20 �Conclusion Our collective victory: the two wagons in Train World are literally "on the right track." Their refurbished interiors and the exterior are now ready for viewing by the public. At present, minute attention is being paid to maintain a stable climate in the preserved interiors of the four other wagons. Despite the fact that four of the six unique carriages are still stored in the undersized and unsuitable depot, we are hopeful for the future. The SNCB has a strong will to take better care of its carriages from now on. The heritage factor was decisive for the treatment methods, but also for the future carriage storage requirements. It also substantially affects the maintenance plan for the trains. It is not just our SNCB colleagues of the “Historical Heritage” department who have to convince their cumbersome bureaucracy and governing boards of the need for a more object-oriented conservation. We as well have had to engage in a constant balancing act – in the opposite direction. As conservatorrestorers, we were forced to consider a more global approach. The size of these Big Stuff objects and the complex approach to the mould catastrophe compelled us to find a middle path between both viewpoints. The project also evidenced many points of resemblance with the preservation of historic interiors in buildings as with the treatment of artefacts. The inflexibility of a public enterprise of this size delayed matters for us on several occasions - which can often lead to risky situations for the conservation and management of six trains. Indeed, apart from concrete factors such as climate and maintenance that cause damage, the greatest risk factor consists in the bureaucracy and the difficulties experienced in convincing the general governing body. Nevertheless, three years of collaboration have clearly ensured greater sensitisation and trust – attitudes that require further nurturing. This is possibly also an ideal moment for the SNCB to develop official „significance framework‟ for their mobile heritage, which – as part of a policy plan – could serve as a basis for long-term preservation, one that would be less subject to possible changes in managing bodies. It is not just these six historic carriages that deserve preservation. The other representative part of their historical mobile heritage must also be preserved for posterity. According to the research of the former Instituut Collectie Nederland (Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, now RCE), such an indispensable significance framework would provide “a strong impetus for professionalization in the preservation of mobile heritage”.10 10 The ICN conducted a study on the value objectification of mobile heritage in 2005, in close collaboration with CIME/Stabien and the National Service for Archaeology, Cultural Landscape and Monuments. See Kok, A. 2009 Erfgoed dat beweegt! Valuation of the Mobiele Collectie Nederland, 2nd edition, Stokerkade cultuurhistorische uitgeverij, Amsterdam. p. 14 / 20 �Detailed overview of the work done during the two and a half year project 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Development of mould problem within the six historic carriages SNCB starts searching for a solution: internal or external? SNCB contacts the preventive conservation department of the KIK-IRPA Climate measurements by the SNCB at the request of the KIK-IRPA, to provide an initial indication of the magnitude of the problem Visit by the KIK-IRPA to the depot and the 6 carriages First emergency intervention: making ventilation in the trains possible A preliminary report of the KIK-IRPA establishing the nature of the problem and proposing a plan of action for the short, medium and long term Meeting between the SNCB and the KIK-IRPA:  Discussion concerning the magnitude of the problem and the approach  An agreement is arrived at between the SNCB and the KIK-IRPA, and the terms subject to which the KIK-IRPA would accept the project (aftercare and new storage location) Proposal: KIK-IRPA as project manager “Intervention in the mould problem.” A project sequence consisting of 5 phases with quotation, is proposed Climate measurements in the depot, and in the 6 carriages, over a period of 6 weeks Drawing up of specifications for the dehumidification of the interiors of the carriages: predetermined climatological target values + requirements: what must and what should not be done Comprehensive preliminary study:  Analysis of the air quality in the carriages  ARA kit mould sampling from various materials in the carriages, at various times during the course of the project  Drawing up detailed condition reports. The degree of contamination was specified with a colour code for each material in the various compartments. Even apparent damage was described.  Work photos and professional photos of the train interiors prior to treatment  Cleaning tests of the various materials (metal, wood, textile, glass, ceramics and modern materials) Commencement of the dehumidification process in the carriages: reduction from 73.5% RH to 53% RH in 30 days  Phase 1: Fortnightly inspection by the KIK-IRPA, of how the materials had responded to the climate; climate control by external firm BEPA  Phase 2: weekly to bi-monthly inspection by the KIK-IRPA, of how the materials had responded to the climate; climate control by external firm BEPA Discussions with the train technicians, the SNCB officers responsible for rolling stock, and with external specialists + international visits to museums and depots with similar collections Drawing up the technical requirements to be included in the specifications: detailed procedural sequence for treatment and sequence of the operations + planning Advising the SNCB concerning the eligibility conditions and contract award criteria for the public procurement contract Investigation for asbestos in three carriages by a specialist external firm Investigation into the use of smoke generating canisters and a smoke generator test in one compartment of a carriage Awarding of the contract for “Mechanical removal of mould and removal of dust from six train interiors” to one external firm Kick-off meeting with the SNCB, the KIK-IRPA and the external (service) provider: project definition, procedural sequence for planning and handling, drawing up the final delivery protocol + practical agreements Cleaning tests of the various materials by the external conservator-restorers Fixation and consolidation tests of the fragile materials and thickened paint layers Discussions concerning the metal corrosion Discussions concerning and definition of the treatment p. 15 / 20 �23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. Knowledge transfer between the various conservator-restorers Fixing flaking paint layers Modification of the ventilation system and replacement of the HEPA filters of dehumidifiers Removable and loose objects (about 366) such as seats, mattresses, chairs, tables, cushions, textile, etc., removal from the carriages; photographing and drawing up a list of the same, packing and transporting them to an external restoration workshop Removal of the carpets from the carriages Mechanical removal of mould and removal of dust from 6 train interiors by the external team of 3 conservator-restorers Weekly to fortnightly inspection/site visits by the KIK-IRPA during the course of the work Bi-monthly inspection of the dehumidifiers and the climate in the carriages by the external firm Asbestos fibre measurements of the air in the carriages during the work, by a specialist external firm Provisional acceptance of each carriage after completion of cleaning ARA kit sampling during the final delivery Site visit to the external restoration workshop, where the movable objects are to be cleaned Discussion of the conservation treatment of the exterior of the carriages, carried out by the SNCB + visit to the workshop Visit to the “Train World” museum, the new storage location of two of the six carriages Visit to an external depot of the SNCB: possible new storage location for four of the six carriages Shifting of two carriages to the external SNCB depot (workshop) for the renovation of the exterior of the carriages and asbestos treatment Follow-up of the treatment of the exterior of the carriages by the KIK-IRPA Shifting of the two carriages to the new “Train World” museum + connection of the same to the dehumidifiers Climate measurements and follow-up in Train World and in the two carriages by the external firm and the KIK-IRPA Preparation of the more comprehensive advisory report:  Discussion of the new storage locations  Analysis of the general damage factors  Requirements relating to the carriages collection  Disaster plan  Concrete recommendations Completion of the contract: “Mechanical removal of mould and removal of dust from six carriages' Discussion of the project and the advisory report with the SNCB, the KIK-IRPA and the external (service) provider: further follow-up, bottlenecks, problems and additional treatments required Bi-monthly follow-up by the KIK-IRPA of the trains, the depot, the climate, disasters, Proposal to the KIK-IRPA to take charge of the aftercare of the 6 historic carriages through follow-up, for at least 1 year:  Supervision of the maintenance of the carriages  Inspection of climate, fragile materials, insect monitoring, etc.  Training of the SNCB personnel to enable them to take on the care and maintenance of the carriages in the future as well p. 16 / 20 �Acknowledgement This vast project could only take shape thanks to the efforts and support of many colleagues. Each of them has been an important building block and we are grateful for their open, valuable and instructive collaboration. We want to give a special thanks to the SNCB who commissioned the project and is represented by Lisa Maesschalck, Sven De Boeck, Greta Verbeurgt and Stéphane Disière. We thank them for their trust and commitment to continue to search for means and ways to guarantee the long-term preservation of these heritage objects. We also thank our colleagues of the preventive conservation unit and of the different restoration studios of the KIK-IRPA, in particular Hilke Arijs, Dahlia Mees, Fanny Van Cleven and Alessandra Girardi (intern) for their perseverance and accuracy which has led to a very detailed condition report and a particularly comprehensive preliminary study. The following KIK-IRPA conservator-restorers searched with determination for the most appropriate cleaning methods and products: Fanny Van Cleven, Dahlia Mees, Caroline Meert, Chantal Fontaine, Jean-Albert Glatigny, Anne-Sophie Augustyniak, Griet Kockelkoren and Elke Otten (from the Royal Army Museum Brussels). The photographers of the KIK-IRPA – Jean-Luc Elias and Katrien Vanacker – succeeded in capturing not only beautiful details of the carriages, but also the grandeur of the interiors. Roald Hayen of the monuments lab of the KIK-IRPA gave practical advice for adapting an existing depot. Without the help and knowledge of Jan Bosselaers, Scientific Support Manager at Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, the test with the smoke generating canisters would not have went that smoothly. He also introduced us to the world of biomedical science, assisting us in word and deed. Veerle Meul (Monumentenwacht Vlaanderen vzw) and Lieve Watteeuw (KU Leuven) also shared their experiences with the use of smoke generating canisters. Bob Child and David Pinniger, both active in the field of Integrated Pest Management, encouraged us to think outside of the box to develop a challenging solution for the moth infestation. A special thanks goes to Paul Henry of the company BEPA who was responsible for the air dehumidification and climate control in the carriages. He continues to meticulously monitor the climate in all the carriages. Without the collaboration of Helicon Conservation Support BV – Frank Kloppert, Jaap van der Burg, Marjan Deblock, Henk Raap and René Prins – everything would have remained mere theory. During the winter months of 2014 they worked in the carriages in extremely difficult conditions. They took this task to heart with a smile and great professionalism. Last but not least, we thank our Director Ms Christina Ceulemans for her support, trust and recognition. Marjolijn Debulpaep & Kaat Sneiders September 2015 p. 17 / 20 �Academic biography MARJOLIJN DEBULPAEP is working at the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage (KIK-IRPA, Brussels, Belgium) since 2001. As a consultant in preventive conservation, she became responsible for the preventive conservation unit in 2007. Her experience and expertise are in the field of conservation and risk management of cultural heritage (complexes of movable heritage). MA in History of Art and Archaeology, Degree in Conservation-Restoration of Paintings and professional courses in Preventive conservation, like the 2007 “Reducing Risks to Cultural Heritage” ICCROM-course in Sibiu and several courses at the Institut national du Patrimoine in Paris. In 2013 she organized a workshop with Rob Waller on "Assessing and managing risks to your collection" at the KIK-IRPA and in 2015 she launched the "RE-ORG Belgium" pilot project. KAAT SNEIDERS started working in 2013 at the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage (KIK-IRPA), where she was assigned as project leader of the long-term Big Stuff project: Conservation of historical train interiors invaded by fluffy stuff. Kaat has a Master in Conservation of Paintings. Since 2005 she has worked in the field of active en preventive conservation where she gained experience in many projects and museums in Belgium and abroad. References Ankersmit, B. 2009, Klimaatnetwerk: richtlijnen voor het museale binnenklimaat, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam. Antoine, F. (s.d.), Schimmels voorkomen en bestrijden, accessed 21/11/2012, http://www.arch.be/docs/brochures/ brochure_schimmels.pdf. Bouwschil, accessed 15/01/2015, http://www.bouwschil.be. Bouwfysica van Monumenten 2014, accessed 29/06/2015, http://www.monumenten.bwk.tue.nl/Algemeen/Applicaties/uploadXLS.aspx. Brokerhof, A. e.a. 2008, Verlichting in musea en expositieruimten. Praktijkdocument, Instituut Collectie Nederland en de Nederlandse Stichting voor verlichtingskunde, Amsterdam. Brokerhof, A., Van Zanen, B. & den Teuling, A. 2007, Fluffy Stuff: Integrated control of mould in archives, Instituut Collectie Nederland, Amsterdam. Brokerhof, A., Van Zanen, B., van de Watering, K. & Porck, H. 2007, Buggy Biz: Integrated Pest Management in collections, Instituut Collectie Nederland, Amsterdam. Caen, J. & Cleeren, N. 2014, VerzekerDe Bewaring: aflevering: Glas, Faro, Brussel, http://www.faronet.be/verzekerde-bewaring. Canadian Conservation Institute 2015, accessed 29/06/2015, http://www.cci-icc.gc.ca. Dale, N. & Fryatt, R. 2001, Pest control with smoke generators in International Pest Control May/June 2001: 109-110. De Jager, A. 2013, VerzekerDe Bewaring: aflevering: Karren, wagens en rijtuigen, Faro, Brussel, http://www.faronet.be/verzekerde-bewaring. Depotwijzer 2015, accessed 29/06/2015, http://www.depotwijzer.be. p. 18 / 20 �European Federation of Museum & Tourist Railways 2005, Riga Charter, Riga, Latvia. accessed 06/08/2015, http://www.fedecrail.org/en/download/riga_charter_d01en.pdf. Guild, S. & Macdonald, M. 2003, Mould prevention and collection recovery: Guidelines for heritage collections, in Technical Bulletin 26, Canadian Conservation Institute. (p. 23) Havermans, J., Hadeel, A.A. & de Bruin G. 2005, Gammastralen contra schimmels: Een gezonde oplossing voor bedreigd archief- en bibliotheekmateriaal, in CR: interdisciplinair vakblad voor Conservering en Restauratie, p. 35-37. Institut Canadien de Conservation 1993, Nettoyage du cuir moisi, Notes de l‟ICC 8/1, Ottawa, Institut Canadien de Conservation. Institut Canadien de Conservation 1997, La preservation des objects en caouchouc ou en plastique. Notes de l‟ICC 15/1, Ottawa, Institut Canadien de Conservation. Institut Canadien de Conservation 1998, Présentation de collection industrielles à l’intérieur. Notes de l‟ICC 15/4, Ottawa, Institut Canadien de Conservation. Institut Canadien de Conservation 2002, Pièce de caouchouc des object industriels. Notes de l‟ICC 15/7, Ottawa, Institut Canadien de Conservation. KLEBBA, G. 2004, Large technology object handling, storage, transport and exhibition installation in Big Stuff: Care of Large Technology Objects, Canberra, Australia, 29 september-1 november 2004, p. 1-24. Kok, A. 2009, Erfgoed dat beweegt! Waardering van de Mobiele Collectie Nederland, 2de editie, Stokerkade cultuurhistorische uitgeverij, Amsterdam. Monumentenwacht Vlaanderen 2001, Schoon schip. Handleiding voor het courant onderhoud van waardevolle kerkinterieurs, Vlaams Centrum voor Ambacht en Restauratie. Museumpest, accessed 29/06/20154, http://www.museumpests.net. Otte, M. 1997, Zijn we gek als we doordraaien, Gebruik, conservering en restauratie van industrieel erfgoed, in Deel IV- kritische reflectie, p.57-64. Padfield, T., Larsen, P.K. 2002, sine titulo, accessed 06/8/2015, http://www.conservationphysics.org/ arnemag/arnemagn1.php. Padfield, T. 2002, The window in context: the interplay between building components, accessed 6/08/2015, http://www.conservationphysics.org/wproj/wproj_tp_ver9.pdf. Padfield, T., Larsen, P.K. 2004, How to design museums with a naturally stable climate, in Studies in conservation, p. 1-14. Peek, M., Cremers, T., Fuhri, H. & Snethlage 2003, Handleiding voor het maken van een calamiteitenplan voor collectie beherende instellingen, Rijksdienst voor het Culturele Erfgoed, Amsterdam. Preventive Conservation and Agents of Deterioration, in Canadian Conservation Institute: https://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/resources-ressources/agentsofdeterioration-agentsdedeterioration/indexeng.aspx, accessed 06/8/2015. Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, Het beperken van lichtschade aan museale objecten: lichtlijnen, informatiebladen Collecties, 2005. p. 19 / 20 �Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, Behoud van binnen: Preventieve conservering van interieurs, W Books, 2013. Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, Glasfolies voor historische interieurs, Gids Cultuurhistorie nr. 26, 2013. Rotenberg, S. & Van den Bosch, K. 2013, De collectie mobiel erfgoed in Vlaanderen: een onderbelicht stukje industriële geschiedenis, in TIC- Tijdschrift voor industriële Cultuur (124), p. 3439. Smet, L. 2013, VerzekerDe Bewaring: aflevering: Licht en verlichting, Faro, Brussel. Smet, L. 2013, VerzekerDe Bewaring: aflevering: Schimmels en insecten, Faro, Brussel. Storme, P., Cleeren, N. 2014, VerzekerDe Bewaring: aflevering: Metaal, Faro, Brussel. The National Trust 2006, Manual of housekeeping. Care and conservation of collections in historic houses, Elsevier, Londen. Waentig, F. 2009, Plastics in art, Michael Imhof Verlag. Watteeuw, L. 2014, VerzekerDe Bewaring: aflevering: Leder en perkament, Faro, Brussel. p. 20 / 20 � 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 2015 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 03.09.2015 - 04.09.2015 Paper A paper presented at a conference or a workshop 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 Historical trains invaded by fluffy stuff. Mould issues in six historical train interiors: treatment and follow-up Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Kaat Sneiders & Marjolijn Debulpaep health and safety industrial heritage mould project management trains transport heritage