> >There is always the question whether English Heritage will allow the
> >plane
>>to be "restored". My guess is that they will take a lot of
>>persuasion as
>>what's involved isn't restoring an existing structure but building a
>>new
>>one, with consequent destruction of the remains of the original.
>>
> Mike Stevens
>>
>>The last I heard the plan was to build a close replica, but to put it
>>on
>>stilts (or piles) a foot or so above the existing structure and using
>>electric
>>motors instead of steam. This will, of course, mean that the will have
>>to drill
>> down into the hillside, but I'm sure that James the Project Manager
>> will
>>have identified where they could drill without damaging the existing
>>structure
>>(too much).
>>>
>>DaveD
>
> Above well snipped.
>
> I must admit I would be against building a replica under these
> conditions. Restoration should be restoring the original structure. If
> this can't be done then interpretation boards are the answer. After
> all we can get to he bottom by means of the locks.
>
> Sue nb Nackered Navvy
>
This is an issue which there is a lot argument on the historic ships
mail list, and IMO the situation is rather different for transport
artefacts than built artefacts. Built artefacts (and many of BW's
structures fall into this category) are built of durable materials like
brick and stone and do not suffer wear and tear (as opposed to
weathering). In this case there is less problem in restoring the
original. Transport artefacts (such as boats, lock-gates etc.) decay
more quickly due to wear and being built of wood / metal; it is
generally accepted that gates are replaced and boats rebuilt, so the
'original' structure is a replica (as with most historic wooden boats).
The general audience wants to see transport artefacts in action -
obviously specialists (such as members of this list) may prefer to use
their imagination on the original but the whole premise of WRG is that a
functional artefact is far more interesting than an industrial
archaeological site.
It's a pity that Foxton was originally built with technology which, even
by the standards of the day, was insufficient. For the powers involved,
which were low, even at that time it might have been possible to use i/c
or electric power, or more responsive boilers like the loco boilers used
at Cromford, in which case it might, like Anderton, have survived.
Sean
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
