1 10 3 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/ddd1ff7cd1a43bc9d03caff0536121c9.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=TuYbd9fLsjSERn2I%7EMSHaR2NUWo-qGeY0mKaRnlTFYregepvUiP5NTVp%7EKbm08I3%7EEGzJplKC6CC-GZ%7EtNuTVamakhrwu%7EWygijjgEt5QvfrcMNqo6PKwIxkKhsNa0l16E5QjpBzFv7Iy7HmrcvyZJ9g6oZPrgU9FzQy-4Jwe-tdLm1wp5DfZ0nG2otP3uLwxXqq%7ELnWxIQrwXTz6zJ0v-IvK5WL0Axl5q5KnVjz5-1oOfr-1jBAdCJaAfjNW2k%7EKBKNO1DdQDEshvqtjgUQkYWkWVVhGAvoCAShYRiwAHo2DSZOUUE91pUUxxs8EgWFNmpWgGqSMbInQLSGoo23pg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 5c49088a3ef303ea5f7a5fd7af60a374 PDF Text Text Title: Changing Visitor Expectation at the Canada Science and Technology Museum Corporation Name and institution of presenter Sue Warren, CSTMC Text INTRODUCTION People feel a strong connection to the past through objects. It is the way we express our cultural differences, our religious differences and our aesthetic differences. We inherit objects and we pass them on to our children. In them we imbue our personal history and link it to something much bigger and more enduring than our own lives. While these personal items may be small, there are objects of larger size and significance which are passed on through society or government or institutions; and very often make up the collections of Museums. As custodians of these objects, Museums serve as the medium through which they are preserved and interpreted. It is not surprising, therefore, that Museums must act as arbiters in disputes over aesthetics, significance and relevance. It is the Museum’s interpretation which determines the final state of the object. The problem with historic objects, for Museums, is that they do not exist purely as an object; but more as a physical representation of the era, society, belief, or event to which they are linked. Whereas the ideal of Conservation is to preserve the materials and the form with minimal intervention; the subjective and the “aesthetic” considerations of preserving and interpreting the objects for the public, are often at odds with this. An archaeological object displayed in an “as found” condition; is much more likely to meet with public acceptance than is an aircraft or a locomotive in a similar condition. Understanding the reasons behind this, and tracing the origins of it; help us to analyze our own priorities and therefore to begin to change not only our expectations, but those of our visiting public. THE CHALLENGE Visitors to Museums of industrial technology or transportation collections, very often expect to see the objects looking as they did when new, they expect them to be on permanent display, and they expect to be able to experience them personally through touching or climbing or seeing them in operation. The truth is that people do experience the world through their senses; so the desire to touch and see and smell an operating locomotive, for instance, is not incomprehensible. A further truth is that there is tremendous value in experiencing historic technology this way. So how do we reconcile this with the fact that modern Conservation is a profession tied to the principles of preserving objects and their history of use, with minimal intervention and loss of originality? �Conservation is a relatively new profession and indeed continues to evolve and define itself, particularly in fields like ours. Our biggest challenge may be that minimal intervention has not always been a goal of Museum preservation; and the evidence of masses of restored objects in the collections of Museums worldwide confirms this unequivocally. Further, these restored objects demonstrate that the aesthetic for technological objects had been firmly established prior to modern Conservation, and that the visitor expectation for this is well entrenched. Since the visitor is largely unaware of the intentions and scientific principles behind Conservation, the responsibility for changing their expectations and indeed the accepted aesthetic for large objects, rests with us. In the case of technological objects, the visitor might assume that because they are big and were built for strength or speed; they do not deteriorate with age and use. Museums have perpetuated this myth by displaying industrial objects looking as new, and often by operating them. The same cannot be said of ethnographic or archaeological objects, nor of smaller social history objects such as costumes or domestic technology. So what is the root of the aesthetic to display transportation pieces and large machinery in this manner? One logical reason our technological history is displayed this way, is that while a coveted costume or piece of inlaid furniture or painting may be cherished and cared for through generations; an obsolete piece of machinery or a tool, or a defunct vehicle might just as easily be left to decay outside or in a field or a ditch. When these pieces are recovered, they are in need of cleaning and repair; and so this is what we have done. It was not a deliberate attempt to falsify or to misrepresent; but merely a desire to return the object to a condition similar to and more representative of, its useful lifetime. Another possible reason, and a less noble one, is the desire of Curators and Conservators, to display objects that look nice. Within the field of Conservation there are different and very subjective interpretations of what the goal of a conservation treatment should be. Although we follow a Code of Ethics, the extent to which treatments are taken is very much a decision of the Conservator and the “owner” or Curator. Degrees of removal of an original finish, of in-painting, or re-painting, polishing, replacement of missing parts; all of these decisions are made on a caseby-case basis. Often it is the aesthetics of the Curator or Conservator that decides this. Always, it is subjective. What is it that influences us? Is it that, in this day of revenue generation and pleasing the public, we feel that we have to put on a good show? This pressure certainly exists today in major Canadian Museums. It is a battle for the visitor dollar, up against competition like theme parks and movies and shopping centres. Programming and special events take floor space from exhibitions; and exhibitions must be “marketable” and showy. Displays must link to Twitter and You Tube, and must appeal to a �generation whose attention span generally precludes any in-depth understanding. Our Public Programming divisions are telling us that the visitors want to see bigger events and more interactive displays; but all this is at the expense of safeguarding the collection, and at odds with Conservation’s prime goals. CSTMC EXPERIENCE CSTMC has by no means solved these problems. What we are doing, with each case we review, is reaching a clearer understanding of what our goals should be with respect to interpreting objects for the visitor. For us, the crux of the issue rests with two key assumptions: that restoration does have a very important role in Museums; and that Conservation and Restoration are not always at odds with each other. What must be clearly and objectively defined, is a set of criteria to be met before an object undergoes restoration. These criteria cannot be based on a Curator’s opinion, or a personal preference; but must be objective and take into consideration the technology, history, social context and future significance of the artefact. An excellent paper on this was written by Joanna Barr in 2006 entitled “The Conservation of Working Objects: Development of a Conservation management Tool”. While this paper deals with Operational artefacts, the principles for deciding when to operate and when to restore are very similar and transferrable. Borrowing the ideas from this 2006 paper, I updated the 1987 version of the Conservation Policy for CSTMC; and introduced a process to rationalize restoration vs. conservation. The criteria identified in this process are: 1. How does the object fit within the Museum’s mandate. 2. Aesthetic value : scale, colour, texture, materials, smells; 3. Historic value: age, provenance, association with people, places or events; 4. Scientific value: rarity, original materials, technology, manufacturing techniques. alterations or modifications; and 5. Social value: spiritual, political or cultural meaning for a particular group. 6. Future value: the potential value of the information contained in the object. Once Museum decision-makers have worked through the process, the implications of restoration and conservation become more evident; and the decisions to restore or conserve, more objective and responsible. Once the public is made aware of these decisions and how they are arrived at; it engages them both physically and intellectually. EXAMPLES FOR DISCUSSION: AVIATION MUSEUM The first two objects for discussion are examples of aircraft, for which Conservation was the agreed approach. The rationale for choosing �conservation over restoration was different for each; and yet the process for developing that rationale was the same. Borel Morane: A history of the conservation of this aircraft is on the Museum website at http://www.aviation.technomuses.ca. It was acquired in 2005 and is the first aircraft in the collection to have been entirely conserved. It is one of a very few with historic fabric, and the only one displayed as an iconic relic rather than in a condition of past use. The Museum’s Borel-Morane was imported into the United States in 1912 and it is the oldest known surviving aircraft to have flown in Canada. Georges Mestach, an early Belgian exhibition pilot, was one of a handful of Europeans to fly in North America at that time and in 1911 was the first aviator to have flown at Quebec City. He and his manager/mechanic, Ernest Mathis, unloaded the Borel-Morane in New Orleans from the ship that carried it across the Atlantic. Soon after, they began exhibition flying throughout the continent with stops that included Winnipeg, Quebec and Sherbrooke. However, the Borel-Morane proved no match for Winnipeg’s stiff prairie wind and Mestach badly damaged the aircraft in a crash against a fence. The machine’s checkered career also included a crash at an air meet near Chicago that resulted in North America’s first midair collision fatality. The damaged aircraft was then sold in 1913 because of import duty irregularities. Mestach continued to fly for the new owner until the aircraft was purchased in 1914 by Earl S. Daugherty of Long Beach, California, an early American exhibition pilot. Although Daugherty suffered a fatal aerial accident in 1928, the aircraft remained in his family’s possession until purchased by the Museum in 2002. Although the fusillage and wings were structurally intact, there were numerous areas of damage. Most important for us, was the presence of most of the historic fabric on the wings. Although the exact date of the fabric was not known, analysis of the doping layer by the Canadian Conservation Institute, showed that it was cellulose nitrate dope, over cotton fabric which, though historic, is not original to its earliest state. Some of the hardware was lost, the tires were a disaster, and the propeller broken. Balancing the equation was the fact that it was a significant iconic aircraft, with most of its parts intact, and that it had most of the historic fabric in a relatively good state of preservation. Measured against the six criteria for conservation vs. restoration; 1. Mandate of the Museum: To foster scientific and technological literacy throughout Canada by establishing, maintaining and developing a collection of scientific and technological objects, with special but not exclusive reference to Canada, and by demonstrating the products and processes of science and technology and their economic, social and cultural relationships with society. The Borel Morane met all of the goals of the mandate statement �2. Aesthetic value: while the aircraft was largely complete, was structurally intact and stable, and retained most of its historic fabric and dope; its aesthetic value is linked to the quality of original materials and to the rarity of finding this kind of material preserved in this context. There is a huge educational value in seeing and smelling original materials, and a visual value in appreciating the way those materials age. 3. Historic value: the aircraft obviously has significant value to the history of aviation in Canada; and a well-documented provenance. Altering anything on the aircraft to repair, improve or replace; would result in the loss of some of the “story” behind that aircraft. 4. Scientific value: the primary scientific value for this aircraft is in the original materials and construction techniques. Repairs from previous accidents are in evidence in the wings, and in the fusillage; preserving not only the structure of the aircraft, but the repair and maintenance routines from the airmen who flew and serviced them. 5. Social value: Culturally, the extremely well documented provenance and importance to the history of aviation in Canada, are embodied in this iconic aircraft. Spiritually it is a testament to the pioneer aviators and to their descendents. Politically, it was a triumph for the Canada Museum of Aviation & Space to purchase this from its American owner and bring it back to Canada where it’s historic significance is so relevant. 6. Future value: just as today’s analytical tools and techniques are advanced beyond the imagination of a generation ago; so future generations will develop techniques to better understand the original materials and their deterioration. Resistance to the idea of conserving had come from a variety of sources, including restoration staff and senior staff. It was a true departure from the accepted way of doing things at the Aviation Museum: namely restoration projects with conservation of some small elements or components. The Borel Morane proved an excellent catalyst for discussing with staff and then demonstrating to the public, that in some cases the importance of an aircraft is more than just the technology; it is the history, the materials and techniques of manufacture, and in this case particularly, the context. The aircraft was exhibited initially with an adjacent exhibit on Conservation consisting of graphic and text panels explaining the role of Conservation. It served as a bridge of understanding between the deteriorated- looking aircraft and the replica displayed next to it. An appreciation for the antiquity of the aircraft was the goal; and visitor feedback proved that the goal was met. The second project was slightly more contentious to resolve, but the dialogue during that resolution was more interesting: Northrop Delta This was originally proposed as a restoration project. An external group had expressed an interest in restoring the aircraft, and from the perspective of our Curator at the time; it offered the opportunity to gather together and inventory what parts we had, and to have an aircraft restored for us. �The Northrop Delta , built by Canadian Vickers in Montreal, was the first stressed skin all-metal aircraft to be built in Canada. It is notable as the first low-wing monoplane in Canada, and also the first use of the then new plastic Perspex. The test flight of the prototype took place on August 16th 1936. These aircraft were regarded with some suspicion as curious tales were told of their apparently erratic behaviour and then un-known characteristics. Pilots spoke well of them, however, and they performed extremely well in the photographic missions for which they were intended, as they were commissioned by the RCAF to photo-document and map the Canadian North. The Northrop Delta was chosen over British and Canadian aircraft, based on its speed (195 mph) and reported manoeuvrability. Canadian Vickers Manager Richard Moffett obtained a sales and then a manufacturing license to produce the Canadian Delta for the RCAF. Initially a prototype was constructed based on bare components shipped from Inglewood CA to Montreal. The engineers at Vickers built three more by hand-forming and laboriously bending steel over the Alclad flanging. Furthermore they adapted the Delta to fly on twin Vickers Type 75 floats as well as Vickers Type F streamlined skis. At this time, warlike appendages were also added, though this was not widely known outside of the RCAF and Vickers: A .30 calibre Browning machine gun was installed in one wing, and bomb racks were fitted. Four more Delta were delivered in November 1937: Delta Mark II’s (of which ours is one). The chief external difference was the incorporation of extra windows in the cockpit sides under the existing windows, to improve the view from the very wide cockpit in flying photo “lines”. Windows were also placed in the cockpit floor, and the Mark II’s had provision to put armament in the wings, bomb racks and guns. At this time, the three original airplanes were returned to Vickers to have these extra windows added so that they became Mark IA’s. With the impending outbreak of WW II, the Canadian Air Force was so strapped for machines, that the Deltas were brought into action as armed coastal patrols. Canada did not officially declare war until September 10, 1939, but the Deltas were on active service on the 3rd. On August 27th, six Deltas departed from Ottawa to Sydney Nova Scotia. Four arrived safely, but one force-landed in Maine and was accompanied by another to render assistance. Delta 673, which had force-landed in Maine, was temporarily repaired and flew back to Megantic, Quebec for an engine change. On September 14th, No. 8 General purpose Squadron became No. 8 Bomber Reconnaissance Squadron. This was also the day that Flight sergeant Doan and LAC Rennie left Megantic in Delta 673 for Sydney. They never reached their destination, and despite searches along the flight-route, no trace was found of the airplane or crew. �No. 8 BR ranged over the Atlantic ocean between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, but experienced problems with the floats and ocean landings. The floats were twisted in ocean swells, and the fittings corroded in salt water. Pilots reported that attempting to take off into ocean swells resulted in popping rivets “akin to machine-gun fire”. During the summer and fall of 1940, eight more Canadian Deltas were built for the RCAF, but these were gradually replaced by Canadian built Bristol Bolingbrokes and the Deltas transferred to the west coast. A total of twenty Northrops were built at Vickers Aircraft Department in Montreal, bringing the company up to full capacity for its works during WWII. At this time, the company moved to Cartierville and became Canadair Ltd. Of these twenty; five were destroyed in accidents (three of them fatal), two were removed from service, and the remaining thirteen were sent to schools on the decree of the 1941 Secretary of Defence. These instructional airframes were disassembled and reassembled over and over , and some survived as late as February 1945. The wreckage of Delta 673 was found in July 11th 1958, forty miles north of Fredericton New Brunswick. No evidence of the crew was ever found and F/S Doan and LAC Rennie became the RCAF’s first casualties. The aircraft was acquired by the Canada Aviation Museum in 1966. The question of whether to conserve or restore centred around the results of the research, and specifically the fact that this was the first Canadian aviation casualty of WWII. The aircraft is significant not only for its technological advancements, but because of the way in which it had been lost and found again. Placing the object within the guidelines for restoration/conservation, the conclusion seemed unarguable: 1. The Museum’s mandate of preservation and research was clearly met by preserving this aircraft in its relic state. 2. Aesthetic value is low for being a representative of the technology; but the aircraft has immense aesthetic value as a crash-site icon. 3. Historic value is high based on its service record and the role it played in Canadian topographical mapping and military response. 4. Scientific value: This is the last surviving example of the Canadian built Northrop Delta. It has scientific and technological significance as the first stressed-skin low-wing aircraft built in Canada and could therefore illustrate manufacturing techniques; and was the first Canadian built aircraft to use Perspex, of which some remains in the window frames. Through evidence of modifications for mapping and for armament, its service history is manifested in the wreckage. 5. Social value is implicit in a crash-site involving loss of life. The aircraft is a symbol of Canada’s commitment to the war, and a symbol for the Canadian people, of the sacrifice of the military personnel who served and died in the war. Spiritually, it is a memorial for the families and survivors of those airmen who lost their lives. 6. Future value of this aircraft is difficult to measure. As a source of reference, research and reproduction, it has a high value to future �generations. Interpreted as a crash-site memorial, it could have tremendous value as a historical “document”. With this much history in the remains of the aircraft, it is an iconic object representative of much more than just the technology. Many parts are missing, including the wings, engines, all interior components and the floats; so that restoration would involve replacement of more than half of the aircraft and this would have to be based on historic documents and plans making it “generic”. Further, taking into consideration that it is the last known one in existence, a strong case was made to preserve it “as is” and keep the history of the aircraft intact. Our hope is to display the wreckage with an interpretive diorama and a history of the working life and significance of the aircraft; and of the airmen who died in it. While we do not have the funding to carry this out in the near future, I would not anticipate any resistance from visitors once the story of the aircraft was explained. SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY MUSEUM The third example of changing visitor experience, comes from the collection of the Science and Technology Museum. This is an example of a very easy way to change visitor expectation; and while it may seem a little absurd in the context of this conference; the solution to our problem has been so simple and so inexpensive, that it bears relating. The Governor General Rail Cars These two cars are an important part of our rail collection. They are not on display, but are accessible to the public through guided tours. Over the years, they have been used inappropriately for past Presidents’ entertaining, and for many tours both official and unofficial. We have struggled with numerous different types of carpet runners and rubber runners down the hallways; and with ropes to keep people out of the compartments. All of these had their problems, and in the end we decided to re-evaluate our procedures for tours. The cars are significant to Canadian History and illustrate our long-standing relationship with England and the Royal Family. They were built in 1927 in the Montreal rail yards of the Canadian Car & Foundry Co. Of standard design, they were the first all steel cars to be used by the Governor General. The exterior was painted Royal purple with the royal crest applied in gold accented by gold cluster leaves and gold striping along the sides of the cars. The interior design was influenced by the wife of the then Governor General, the Marquess of Willingdon . Colour schemes were tailored for Lady Willington, who had a fondness for lilac. The first run with the GG was March of 1928. The details of this tour are shrouded in secrecy, with documentation at the time using various code names for the GG and his destinations. This was apparently necessary because of the perceived threat from the strong Canadian Nationalism movement, combined with anti-British sentiment that evolved after WWI. �With the Great Depression in Canada, of 1929; fiscal restraint led to a movement for the accountability of government railway expenditures. Previous agreements by both national Railway companies (Canadian National and Canadian Pacific), to transport the GG cars at no charge, were re-negotiated and a tariff of $1 per mile was assigned. This led to conflict between CN and CP and the Government which was not resolved until the early 1940s. However, in the meantime, the GG cars travelled extensively throughout the 1930s with trips to the Maritimes, Western Canada and the Eastern US as well as several trips around Ontario and Quebec. Two major modifications during the 1930s were the 1935 exterior painting of both cars to standard CN green, including removal of the gold leaf clusters and stripes; and secondly, the addition of air conditioning to both cars on May 19th 1937. In 1939, the cars provided accommodations to King George and Queen Elizabeth I on their Royal Tour of Canada. Incidentally, we also have in our collection, the automobile that was used during this tour. The tour marked the first visit to Canada of a reigning British monarch. Both rail cars were repainted in Royal blue, with the royal coat of arms applied to each side of the car. At the request of His Majesty, a buzzer system was installed between royal cars and the engineer’s cab so that the royal couple could be alerted when large crowds were standing beside the tracks , and they could then move to the rear platform to greet the crowd. This buzzer system does not exist today, but there is no record of when it was removed. Service of the cars during the war was somewhat controversial, as the Railway companies were obviously concerned with operational and maintenance costs, and felt that service of the special train took away from the war effort. Nonetheless, there were some significant trips by Princess Alice and the Governor General in 1942, and then Princess Alice’s trip to Toronto in 1943. Both of these trips were intended as war effort public relations, according to the official GG documents. The 1950s were the decade for Royal Visits to Canada. The Royal Tour of 1951 for Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh, followed by and 1958 visit of Princess Margaret to Eastern Canada and finally the 1959 tour of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip. This was the last time the cars acted as the official cars for the GG and carried members of the Royal household. The last official function of the GG cars was for the funeral of Governor General George Vanier in 1967. The cars transported the body from Ottawa to a burial site in Quebec City. By now the coming of high speed light weight trains meant that the GG cars were outdated and possibly unsafe. Two new cars were built to replace them, and the originals were �re-named #3 and #4 and donated to the Museum after being used to convey VIPs to and 1967 Expo celebrations. They had one last moment of glory in 1977, when they carried the Royals to Wakefield on October 16th, pulled by the Museum’s 1201 Locomotive. In preparation for this, the cars were taken to the CN shops in Montreal to be “restored”. This largely included repainting the exterior, re-carpeting the interior, and replacing worn curtains and upholstery trimmings. None of the essentials were altered at this time. Since that time, only minor repairs have been undertaken The Cars have always been an attraction for visitors, and it has been a challenge to both make them accessible, and to protect them. The only way to experience the object is to walk through it; and this is something we are all familiar with when opening historic houses or structures to the public. Prior to the summer tour season this year, we priced various systems for protecting the carpets (the runners were constantly creeping and tripping people); all proved to be difficult to install, and expensive. So , we ran a pilot project this year, to ask visitors to wear disposable “booties” while touring the cars. These are the type of disposable foot-coverings that are common in Canada in the winter months, where professional offices such as Doctors or Dentists, request patients to leave winter boots at the door. The immediate correlation most visitors make with these booties, is that of a “professional visit”. Secondly, it provides an extra few minutes for the tour guides to reiterate the rules of conduct once inside the cars. It was an incredibly simple solution, and far less intrusive than replacing the carpet runners. The cars look much nicer without the added carpet runners, there are no more tripping hazards, and visitor feedback has shown that the overall impression given to visitors is that this is a privilege. We calculated that we could purchase approximately a five year supply of booties for the same cost as replacing the rubber carpet runner in one of the cars. AGRICULTURE MUSEUM The final example is from the collection of the Agriculture Museum: Farmall Tractor: The 1938 tractor was acquired in 1989 in good original condition, though suffering from decades of neglect in a farmer’s field. The tractor had a well documented provenance and a documented history of use since the donor was a family member of the original purchaser. The decision to conserve what was left of the original finish, was based on the fact that it retained a surprisingly high proportion of its original paint and structure. At the time there was little conflict over this decision since the new Curator of Agriculture was much in favour of conservation rather than restoration. There was some concern about a structural repair that was necessary to the frame of the tractor; but this was successfully TiG welded by one of our aircraft mechanics, with the loss of only about 2.5 cms either side of the weld. �Where conflict was anticipated, was in the exhibit; where a conserved “relic” would be introduced into a display featuring all restored tractors. In the end the appearance of the tractor was never questioned by visitors; and in fact we had the very rewarding experience of having the son of the original owner (himself an elderly gentleman) comment to Museum staff, that he recognized a repair that he had carried out on the broken tool box when he was a young man working on the farm. Had the tractor undergone restoration, this small element of the history of the object would have been lost forever. CONCLUSION If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then restoration is a close second. The desire to look after something of beauty or value has shaped the way conservation defines itself today. The loving care restorers put into objects is a measure of their dedication to that object. However, the homage that restoration pays to the object itself, is often at the cost of the history and more ethereal significance that Museums are obligated to preserve as the “context” of the object. While Conservation as a profession has more than a few skeletons in the closet (questionable materials, treatments, and over-treatments); the trend today, world-wide, is definitely toward preserving the original rather than restoring. We had thought that the visitor would reject this trend; and, as Canadians do; were not addressing the problem head-on but rather trying to circumvent it and prevent a confrontation. What has become evident to me, through these examples and other such experiences; is that it is not the visitor who is dictating the expectations; it is us that have underestimated the willingness of visitors to interpret artefacts in a preserved state rather than view them restored. From a Conservation perspective, preserving the original materials should always be the priority of a Museum. CSTMC receives more requests to see original paint schemes, fittings and lay-outs, than anything else. Model-makers, restorers, researchers, collectors and veterans use the national collection as a reference source. Nowhere else is this information going to be protected and preserved. Any time an object has been restored, no matter how “faithful to the original” it is, there is a loss of authenticity. One of our colleagues at Vintage wings Canada tells me that he is sad when he visits our collection because it feels like a graveyard. The truth is that he does visit regularly to verify layout, parts or measurements, and sometimes he comes looking for parts to borrow or use (which he doesn’t get). In reviewing these case studies for this presentation, it is obvious to me that our expectation of resistance from the visitor has been largely exaggerated. The public is quite willing to accept a conserved object in a deteriorated state, and to accept restrictions on access; as long as these are explained and interpreted. The Museum visitor demographic is changing, particularly at the Aviation Museum. This seems to me a perfect time to introduce new ideas about display expectations. In retrospect, it is �the expectations of museum staff that have been more difficult to change; but changing, they are. With each example of this restoration/conservation debate, we have come closer to a solid understanding of how we make these decisions and how we can disseminate this process to the public. Each time we display a conserved object rather than a restored one, we re-define the aesthetic and change the status quo a little bit more. Perhaps with time, we shall have the public clamouring for more unrestored relics. September 2010 �� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Big Stuff 2010 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010 Article An article in a journal or periodical Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Changing Visitor Expectation at the Canada Science and Technology Museum Corporation Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Sue Warren Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010 aircraft conservation interpretation railway restoration significance trains https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/2883152b31a3e3894f2b14db88f9ac94.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=sjVFQ5ljAXY1tM7rPN82Gw2xeGmtnxJgPrCnTFbzUa2e-64P%7EafH115lxTMc6Gj-edP4OTswY811KAPvMWB7JVA4BX31Xqncv425dENUKWQnfDaSZ8UNwdhT8Xrv6IFy31SRGdjDyoFKSky-UhqCUmATJhxxrJoTypLOI-Rka5q2P1pDVvdlz1i7JY5hcNeG2GDNnxQeYky6dCk97DjWuRY6NKXTRXyFFUpMXh24uSMzhGQCJx6MB%7EgfLGyc6bh26GKLvi7O-7CO3MLWVwZh0VAMPsA3Wp1oPWotP8Ivywag4PlRoVrU6ASNCSs8fwGX1%7EbQRgFfky9T-bs43XVFZQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 2076efa0b153abc32d79f744034eed61 PDF Text Text "Is it safe? - balancing conservation, operation and display of rail vehicles at the National Railway Museum" Chris Beet and Anthony Coulls Engineering & Operations Manager Chris Beet and Senior Curator of Rail Vehicle Collections, Anthony Coulls look at managing the conservation and operation of historic locomotives and rolling stock from the National Collection in the 21st century. The world and legislation move on, but our collection is rooted in time, often with objects that were built and run in the days before Health & Safety law became commonplace. The National Railway Museum has made the decision to run some of its locomotives on the main line railway, and this requires further following of safety procedures. Chris & Anthony will seek to highlight some of the ways that they have to follow current best practice from both an engineering, operation and conservation point of view to make the collection accessible to as wide an audience as possible. The title of this paper “Is it Safe”? reflects a question posed of the one time Head of Engineering Collections at the NRM, Richard Gibbon, who will be know to many of you. He was asked it one day whilst steaming up our working replica of “Rocket”, built in 1979 to the original 1829 design. His response was “of course it isn’t – it’s an 1820s design” – and this may be amusing to us here today, but said to the wrong person, might have prevented the operation of the locomotive and made the lives of those of us who work with operating historic machinery that little bit harder! I will look at the National Railway Museum’s basics of operation and then Chris will follow with specific examples from practical experience of running historic locomotives on the main line railway of today. We have a policy across the National Museum of Science & Industry which I shall touch on briefly, and is appended to this paper, which looks for the Collections Side of Selecting and Operating items from the collection. Once a vehicle has been selected, we then produce a detailed Conservation Management Plan which is worked into the practical conservation or restoration work and used as a management tool, detailing as it does both the historical work and significance of the vehicle and also how the vehicle is to be repaired, operated and documented. We use these plans for all our vehicles, and are able to justify operating unique and elderly locomotives through having worked through the rationale of a conservation survey being undertaken to ensure minimal loss of historic fabric whilst allowing safe operation in the light of current legislation. We have a hierarchy of replacement on locomotive parts – so bearings, boiler tubes and such like are consumables, whereas replacement of frames, boilers etc is much more intrusive and less likely to find favour. In some cases it is easier and more cost effective to repair than replace with new. An extreme case for the NRM has been the repair of Flying Scotsman’s boiler, where we have had a new copper firebox made and fitted in the traditional manner, rather than going down the route of having an all welded new boiler made. We �know htat the techniques to repair and maintain a copper firebox still exist, whereas repairing an all welded steel boiler of that size is an art which is still being learned. A major part of this papar though needs to consider how we are operating 19th and 20th century machinery in the 21st century. The hardware we are operating remains basically constant, but the environment has changed a lot even in the 42 years since the last steam locomotives ran on British Rail. Track has become higher in places, many lines now have overhead electric wires in place for power, platforms and stations have been rebuilt. Trains that operate on the lines have become faster. How have the heritage world and the NRM been able to cope? Every vehicle has to have a Fitness to Run examination if it is to be even towed on the main line railway. Axles must be ultrasonically tested at the very least and brake systems checked. If it is a locomotive, then it must be mechanically sound – and if a steam loco, the boiler must pass an annual inspection for insurance as a pressure vessel. Air brake receivers for any vehicle must also pass the same inspections. Some of our heritage collection is too tall to safely work under electric wires, so we have had to reduce the height by replacing items such as cab sides or chimneys with ones an inch or so lower to make them fit. This is reversible in most cases and often un-noticeable to the human eye. Interestingly, it is not always the locomotive’s chimney or dome that is the tallest part. We also do not allow operating staf to climb on locomotives whilst under electric wires. You can also see on this slide that we have introduced lower level water fillers on the locomotive tenders to prevent the need to go on top. These also fit standard fire hoses, to allow for filling from hydrants or tankers – as the steam age infrastructure for servicing steam locos is long gone. We have to adapt to modern operating procedures and carry electrickery as one of my colleagues puts it – On Train Monitoring and Recording (the railway “Black Box”) and Train Protection and Warning System – which are modern requirements that have had to be adapted to work on steam age technology, so one finds electronics that have to be designed to work in the hard physical world of the steam railway. Then one has to find the space on a team loco to put it all (see slide) and then maintain it with hot oil and steam around, water and coal dust! There is a requirement to carry a modern high intensity headlamp for visibility, along with modern data and warning signs as well! Of course our staff and volunteers have to comply with modern Health & Safety too, and at the very least carry full Personal Track Safety cards after extensive training. The actual operation of the locomotive remains in the hands of the Train Operating Company who provide a driver, fireman or secondman and a Traction Inspector. We then also have an owner’s representative on the loco to advise on any issues, faults or foibles. On a heritage railway, many of these issues do not arise, but we still must remain ahead of the game at all times �The very fact that we continue to operate heritage locomotives on the main line railway is at times on reflection, little short of marvellous… NMSI Policy and Procedures for Selecting and Operating Historic Objects from the Collections of the National Museum of Science & Industry Date Ratified: Date for Review: New or Revised Policy Written by : Distribution: New Marta Leskard, Conservation Manager Paper, electronic copies, shared Collections drive This document to be read in conjunction with associated Policies and museums’ policy drafts Related Science Museum Science Museum Collecting Policy, 10 July 2007 Documention: Science Museum, Indemnity & Insurance Management, draft policy 2007 (M. Rollo) National Museum of Science & Industry, Corporate Plan 2006 Science Museum Human Remains Policy, draft August 2005 (L. O’Sullivan) Collections Management Policy, National Museum of Science & Industry, April 2005 Conservation of objects in the care of the Science Museum, Policy statement, January 2005 (H. Newey) Increasing access to the Science Museum’s collections through live interpretation, draft policy, 19 June 2003 Version 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.2 Date 03/04/2008 27/05/2008 09/09/2008 09/04/2009 12/03/2010 18/03/2010 26/05/2010 Status Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Final Comments Revised for NMSI Added E. Bartholomew comments Added H. Ashby comments Approved NMSI CG 18/05/2010 �CONTENTS: 1. POLICY STATEMENT 2. PROCEDURE 2.1 Proposal 2.2 Selection 2.2.1 2.2.2 3. Selecting Functions for Display Risk Factors SELECTION PROCESS 3.1 3.2 Statement of Significance 3.3 Conservation Objectives 3.4 Treatment Plan 3.5 4. Curatorial, Conservation and Information Assessments Treatment Implementation OPERATION 4.1 Records APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C �1. POLICY STATEMENT The National Museum of Science and Industry, through its institutions The Science Museum, The National Railway Museum and The National Media Museum, holds one of the world’s pre-eminent collections in science, technology, industry, transport and medicine. These collections provide an unequalled record of the first and second industrial revolutions and beyond. They contain not only unique icons of international significance but also the everyday items that show the impact of science on how human lives are lived. As leaders in science and technology communication and learning, the NMSI remains committed to operating historic objects, recognising that the high levels of interest and the educational value in “working objects” make a meaningful connection between the museum’s visitors and the collections The NMSI’s selection, risk assessment and review processes (based on the tenets of the National Heritage Act, 1983) are to ensure that working objects are used in a safe, secure and sustainable way, according to best practice, now and for the future, letting the importance and condition of the object and the quality of the evidence for an earlier state guide the decision. �2. PROCEDURE The procedure for selecting an object for operation follows detailed proposal and selection criteria 2.1 Proposal At each museum. an object may be proposed for operation by staff from any department- as all are stakeholders in the museum’s vision. Additionally, proposals may come from outside groups- researchers, engineers, special interest groups, artists and filmmakers • • • • • • • • Each operation will be approved by the appropriate museum management team ( see Appendix A) after consideration of all of the following: the object’s cultural significance, which is the aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value that it has for past, present and future generations. Objects which are considered rare will not be considered for operation as use is mutually incompatible with preservation of the whole. the significance of the object’s function(s), including its alterations, repairs and modifications, if any. Any new use of an object will be compatible with original function with minimal change to fabric, respect of meanings and associations and continuation of practices which contribute to the cultural significance of that object. the object’s current condition and state of preservation, the likely impact of wear to significant parts, the need to update to current safety standards and the requirement to remove hazardous materials and/or functions. Objects which are beyond their economic life (ie: in a state of accelerated wear) will not be chosen for operation unless physical integrity is deemed insignificant in relation to significant function. the benefit to the public and to the museum, in order to inspire innovation, engage understanding, motivate learning or preserve the collections. Publicity, direct revenue generation, sponsorship attraction or special interest group gratification may be considered as supplemental reasons for proposal for operation but are not acceptable motivations on their own. the resources required for maintaining the functionality for both the short and long term. Money, time, facilities, equipment and skilled staff are required for treatments, maintenance and repair programmes. Thorough documentation including photography of all processes from decision-making to maintenance logs and handling requirements must be kept and be made accessible. Where resources cannot be committed to the long-term maintenance, repair and replacement programme, an object shall not be selected for operation. museum needs in terms of frequency of operation and number of objects operating. One operating object can be a focus for visitors but several operating objects can become a distraction or have minimal impact on public programmes restrictions of museum context (available space, exhibit design, health & safety requirements). opportunities to record through the media of film and photography the return to operation, use and maintenance in order to maintain knowledge of craft and traditional skills. �2.2 Selection A “working object” can be anything that originally had an operational function and can be either stationary or mobile. Operating a working object can mean anything from demonstrating only one particular function to running the full functional complexity. Every object in the collections with an operational function is assumed to be suitable to be a working object unless it is considered “rare”. Rare is defined as unique, an icon, of incomparable significance, nationally important or bearing important historic evidence such as developmental information, significant use, original fabric. The decision about whether an object is considered rare and therefore not a “working object” will be made by the relevant curator and endorsed by the chief Curator or relevant Head of Collections. 2.2.1 Selecting Functions for Display The selection of functions for display, educational and access purposes will be driven by an explicit evaluation of the significance of different functions. Operation will contribute to building individual and meaningful connections with science and technology through: • adding to the understanding of function, purpose and significance • showing the sensory aspects of sound, sight, feel and smell • illustrating technological, social and/or economic change • preserving significant function • preserving or rediscovering traditional skills associated with the fabrication, operation and repair of working objects • inspiring and sustaining an interest in science, industry, engineering, history and/or museums 2.2.2 Risk Factors Risk factors which must be considered are: • possible loss of historic information, including significant evidence of use, during restoration to working order • potential replacement of original parts or alterations of original design for operational or health and safety reasons and regulations or through wear caused by operation • potential difficulty in determining originality of parts or original appearance • increasingly unavailable historic materials and craft skills making accurate reproduction of parts or appearance difficult or impossible • potential deterioration of historic fabric caused by the substitution of modern materials and techniques • potential increased deterioration of historic fabric caused by uncontrollable operational environments, particularly outdoors, or through accident, inappropriate use or abuse or insufficiently trained operators • insufficient resources allocated to restore an object to working order or to completing the project as a result of underestimating needed allocation, escalating costs, project shortfall or changing priorities and long-term plans. • imbalance of resources required to maintain and demonstrate the working object and to train the operators against the return in benefit to the museum in terms of public interest or educational value. �• 3. non-refundable costs of minimising risk through loss or damage to an working object as the museum may not be able to find the resources to purchase commercial insurance (see Appendix B) SELECTION PROCESS 3.1 • • • Curatorial, Conservation and Information Assessments: The Curatorial Assessment will be the responsibility of the relevant curator, with input from the chief Curator or the relevant Head of Collections, and will define what the object is and what its function(s) were/are. It will fully detail an object’s history and provenance and will include research into similar objects to enable comparisons of rarity, condition, integrity and interpretive potential. The Conservation Assessment will be the responsibility of the relevant Conservation Manager and will focus on the material(s) of the object and its condition and functionality. It will include a description of the physical fabric and function(s), analysis of samples as required, identification of alterations and an appraisal of the wear level(s). It will outline the resource implications for treatment, maintenance, environment, security, health & safety regulations, access, exhibition, storage, handling and object movement, with input from relevant museum departments (see Appendix A). The Information Assessment will be the responsibility of the Registrar and will assess the issues of indemnity and insurance and the financial and legal responsibilities of the museum. 3.2. Statement of Significance A statement of significance, drawn from the curatorial, conservation and information assessments, will give a reasoned clear summary describing the values, meaning and importance of the object. It will include: • • • cultural significance- context, history and uses significant values- aesthetic, historic, scientific, social, spiritual significant alterations, modifications and repairs It will be the responsibility of the relevant curator to produce the statement which will be a formal document retained as part of the historic record of the object, filed in a format designated by Collections Documentation. 3.3 Conservation Objectives The conservation objectives, based on the conservation assessment, will outline all aspects of the object’s care and use, so that treatment and operation does not compromise the significance of the object • The level of operation acceptable for the object’s preservation will be established: o no operation �o o o o o mothball, shutdown or freeze minimal operation- for maintenance purposes only under tightly controlled conditions low levels of operation for occasional demonstration under controlled conditions medium levels of operation for infrequent demonstration under medium controls high levels of operation for regular demonstration • The appearance objectives appropriate for the object will be defined. • The proposed future use will be determined: o permanent display, including demonstration on or off-site, visitor access or static exhibit o long-term loan for operation or demonstration o temporary display, including demonstration, visitor access or static exhibit o storage The conservation objectives will be an itemised Conservation Management Plan produced by the relevant Conservation manager/ Conservator and will be used to inform the treatment plan. 3.4 Treatment Plan The treatment plan will establish all potential options to satisfy the conservation objectives including: • • • • • • alterations required for compliance with regulations, including removal of hazardous materials preservation of internal components safety and stability of the object works to achieve appearance replacement of like with like or with modern materials, and conservation, retention or disposal of original components depending on an assessment of their significance use of traditional skills or modern methods for repairs and replacement manufacture The treatment plan will determine the resources required for all the treatment options: • • • • • • • skills equipment materials space continued availability and commitment of resources projected maintenance including tasks, schedules, costs, skills and supplies future sources of suppliers The treatment plan will identify the options for operation and display and/or storage with details of space, resources and logistics included for each option. The final stage of the treatment plan will be to select the approach to be implemented after review of the options. This review will be undertaken by the initiator of the proposed project, the relevant curator, the relevant Conservation manager and the Registrar. Resource considerations, both for achieving and sustaining the decision, will be a priority. �The Treatment Plan will be included in the Conservation Activity in MMXG. The final decision will be endorsed by the appropriate museum executive managers (Appendix A) and the justifications for the decision will be a formal document retained as part of the historic record of the object. 3.5 Treatment Implementation The treatment implementation will include both the treatments as specified by the Treatment Plan and the production of an Operating and Handling Guideline and Inspection Record and Maintenance Plan. The Operating and Handling Guideline will include: • • • • • • parameters and limits of operation operation methods authorised operators and required training operation logbook template moving and handling instructions identified hazards The Inspection Record and Maintenance Plan will include: • • • • • inspection plan and schedule maintenance plan and schedule specified fuels and lubricants the treatment plan decision to replace like with like or with modern alternatives inspection record and maintenance record templates �4. OPERATION The Operational Logbook, produced as part of the Operating and Handling Guideline, and the Inspection and Maintenance records, based on the Inspection Record and Maintenance Plan, are to be rigorously kept and updated throughout the object’s working life and the documents retained as part of its historic and technical record. Resources, allocated as determined in the treatment planning, will ensure that the Inspection Record and Maintenance Plan can be carried out as specified. Where adequate resources cease to be available for ongoing maintenance, necessary repairs or legislated modifications, a review of the operational plan will be held. Periodic reviews will also be undertaken to determine whether an object should continue to be operated, whether the operation should or must, by reason of changing regulations or legislation, be modified or whether the object is no longer suitable for operation. A project manager or project owner will be given the responsibility for the programme for continued operation of the historic object and will conduct the reviews consulting with all relevant stakeholders, The programme and methodology for operating an object will not be modified or altered without review. 4.1 Records Treatment and operating records will be kept in these formats: • • • • Initial and on-going object treatment in the Conservation Activity in MMXG Up-to-date maintenance record in the Working Object Database, Conservation Server which can then be linked to MIMSY as a separate MS Excel file. This file can be retrieved and edited inside MIMSY or independently as a common MS Excel file. Maintenance history in the hard-copy Logbook held in the object’s green file. Where there is a statutory requirement for a specific format of record this will be adopted as the standard for NMSI record keeping (for instance a Rail Vehicle Maintenance & Operation Policy) �APPENDIX A Selection Management Teams: The Science Museum • Science Museum Policy and Operations Committee: Chief Curator Head of Conservation & Collections Care NMSI Head of Corporate & Collections Information Head of Library & Archives Security Manager The Conservation Assessment will be the responsibility of the relevant Conservation Manager, with input from Logistics, Security and the Collections Hazards Management Group. The National Railway Museum Collections Development Group: Head of Knowledge & Collections Senior Curator Rail Vehicle Collections Engineering & Rail Operations Manager Registrar Curator of Railways Curator, Archive & Library Collections Learning Manager Professor of Railway Studies • The Conservation Assessment will be the responsibility of the Conservator and/or the Engineering & Rail Operations Manager with input from the Senior Curator, Rail Vehicles Collections; Head of Knowledge & Collections; Collections Development Group. The National Media Museum Collections Group Head of Collections & Knowledge Conservator Collections Manager Curator of Photographs (x2) Curator of Photographic Technology Curator of Cinematography Curator of New Media Curator of Television • The Conservation Assessment will be the responsibility of the Conservator with input from the Collections Manager, relevant subject Curator, Head of Collections & Knowledge and the Collections Hazards Management Group. �APPENDIX B The factors which must be considered before proposing to operate an object on loan in: Collections Registration must be consulted before any object on loan in is considered for operation. The owner’s approval will have to be sought and obtained in writing. In the case of some historic loans, it may prove difficult or impossible to identify a current owner. The Government Indemnity Scheme does not cover loss or damage arising while objects on loan are driven, piloted, flown, sailed, ridden, operated and so on unless the Secretary of State has given specific written approval permitting indemnity to apply while a borrowed object is in motion or exhibited as a working display or while it has to be set in motion in order to maintain it in running order. Written approval must be sought from the Secretary of State before the object is operated but the Government Indemnity Scheme does not cover loss or damage arising or flowing from normal wear and tear. Resources must be allocated from a pre-determined budget in order to care for a borrowed object during preparation for/and operation by purchasing commercial insurance. Commercial insurance may only cover the asset value of the object in the event of loss or damage and not the losses due to repair, restoration or operation. �APPENDIX C Research Documentation and Reference Material Bailey M and Glithero J, ‘Learning through Conservation: The Braddyll Locomotive Project’ in Proceedings of the Industrial Collections Care and Conservation Conference (United Kingdom Institute for Conservation, Cardiff, 1997). Bailey M and Glithero J, The Engineering and History of Rocket (National Railway Museum, 2000). Bailey M and Glithero J, ‘Learning through Restoration: the Samson Locomotive Project’ in Early Railways (London, 2001). Baird, David M., “Restoration in Transportation Museums”, Preservation and Conservation, Yearbook of the International Association of Transport Museums, Volume 7, Gdansk 1980, pp.78-85 Barr, Joanna, “The Conservation of Working Objects: Development of a Conservation Management Tool”, Artlab Australia 2006 Bracegirdle, Robert, “Preservation of Public Service Transport Vehicles. The Problems of Keeping Vintage Vehicles in Running Order”, Yearbook of the International Association of Transport Museums, Volume 13/14, 1986-1987, pp.55-72 Brodie, Francis E., “Clocks and Watches, A Re-Appraisal?, Restoration: Is It Acceptable?, British Museum Occasional Paper 99, ed. A. Oddy, 1994, pp. 27-32 Child, Robert, “Putting Things in Context: The Ethics of Working Collections”, Restoration: Is It Acceptable?, British Museum Occasional Paper 99, ed. A. Oddy, 1994, pp. 139-143 Coulls, Anthony, “Conservation or Restoration? there’s room for both!”, www.oldglory.co.uk, October 2002 Crotty, David, “Aeroplane or Artefact? Restoration and Conservation of Aircraft”, hands ON hands OFF, Scienceworks, pp.16-19 Deck, Clara, “Conservation of Big Stuff at The Henry Ford: past, present and future”, The Henry Ford Museum, BigStuff unpublished proceedings, 2004 (available BigStuff website) Gibbon, R., “Controlled Operation or Wrecking? The Use of Objects from the National Railway Museum’s Collections”, Industrial Collections, proceedings of the conference 911April, 1997, pp.17-25 Leskard, Marta, “Fair Use: National Museum of Science & Technology”, International Institute for Conservation- Canadian Group unpublished proceedings, 15-18 May, 1987 McManus, Edward, “A Restoration Philosophy: A Conservation Position Paper” National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, 1990 Mann, Peter Robert., “Working Exhibits and the Destruction of Evidence in the Science Museum”, The International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, 1989, pp. 369387 �Mann, Peter Robert, The Restoration of Vehicles for Use in Research, Exhibition and Demonstrattion”, Restoration: Is It Acceptable?, British Museum Occasional Paper 99, ed. A. Oddy, 1994, pp.131-138 Mikesh, Robert C., “Aircraft Preservation”, Preservation and Conservation, Yearbook of the International Association of Transport Museums, Volume 7, Gdansk 1980, pp.49-65 Mitchell, Gillian, “Application of the Burra Charter to large technology objects: a freelance conservator’s experiences”, BigStuff unpublished proceedings, 2004 (available BigStuff website) Moncrieff, Anne, “Conservation of Industrial Collections”, unpublished proceedings of Standard Threads, International Institute for Conservation- Canadian Group Workshop, 1992 Newey, Hazel, “Conserving Scientific and Industrial Heritage: A Pragmatic Approach”, Industrial Collections, proceedings of the conference 9-11 April, 1997, pp. 159-165 Newey, Hazel and Meehan, Peter, “The Conservation of an 1895 Panhard et Levassor and a Prototype Austin seven Motorcar: New Approaches to the Preservation of Vehicles” The Conservator, Number 23, 1999, pp. 11-21 Rees, Jim, The Steam Locomotive as an Historic Building, unpublished paper delivered at Scottish Railway Collections Conference, Falkirk 2006 Rolland-Villemot, B. & Forrieres, C., “The Different Contributors and Their Role in the Conservation, Care and Maintenance of Industrial Collections”, Industrial Collections, proceedings of the conference 9-11 April, 1997, pp. 51-58 Thurrowgood, D. & Hallam, D., “Preserving significance: Why the journey matterd more than the car”, National Museum of Australia, BigStuff unpublished proceedings, 2004 (available BigStuff website) Wain, Alison, “Large technology projects- success and sustainability”, Australian War memorial, BigStuff07 unpublished proceedings, 2007, pp.12-15 Wain, Alison, “A well-planned operation”, Australian War Memorial, BigStuff unpublished proceedings, 2004 (available BigStuff website) Ware, Michael E. “Restoration of Motor Cars”, Preservation and Conservation, Yearbook of the International Association of Transport Museums, Volume 7, Gdansk 1980, pp.21-34 Weston, Margaret, “Restoration”, Preservation and Conservation, Yearbook of the International Association of Transport Museums, Volume 7, Gdansk 1980, pp.9-20 White, John, “Conservation and large technological aretfacts: a curatorial perspective”, Australian War Memorial, BigStuff unpublished proceedings, 2004 (available BigStuff website) The Burra Charter: The Australian ICOMOS Charter for places of cultural significance, 1999 “Preservation Policy”, The Henry Ford Museum & Greenfield Village Policy & Procedure Memorandum No. 25a, 3/2001 (available CoOL website) � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Big Stuff 2010 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010 Article An article in a journal or periodical Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Is it safe? - balancing conservation, operation and display of rail vehicles at the National Railway Museum Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Chris Beet and Anthony Coulls Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010 adaptation change locomotive maintenance modern context Operating Objects operation policy railway risk assessment safety significance standards training trains https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/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