10.11.2012 Views

dk nkf - Nordisk Konservatorforbund Danmark

dk nkf - Nordisk Konservatorforbund Danmark

dk nkf - Nordisk Konservatorforbund Danmark

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Once the treatment of the topsides had been<br />

completed the glass waterline plate could be fitted.<br />

Various measures were required to stabilise the dock<br />

and to protect the caisson which had not been moved<br />

for thirty years! The dock floor was also provided<br />

with foundation pads for the support steelwork<br />

for the glass plates and the new steel shores. The<br />

external dehumidification plant was also installed<br />

in the dry dock before the glass plate was fitted. A<br />

second plant of equivalent size was manufactured in<br />

demountable elements and fitted inside the ship.<br />

The aim of most conservation exercises is to conserve<br />

the object at the same time as minimising the<br />

intervention. Clearly in the case of the Great Britain<br />

the intervention was to be significant. Nevertheless<br />

the aim was to minimise the visual impact of the<br />

environmental changes that were needed.<br />

Conclusion<br />

In both cases, a number of key factors dictated the<br />

conservation treatment of both objects. The bridge<br />

had to be used for vehicular purposes. In effect, its<br />

treatment was determined by the functional needs of<br />

Fort Brockhurst as a whole and not the conservation<br />

needs of the bridge in isolation. This was continuing<br />

a trend begun when the first of the inelegant<br />

strengthening schemes was put into effect. A desire<br />

to improve the physical appearance of the bridge<br />

in relation to the fort was an understandable factor<br />

in the choice of treatment. Another was the desire<br />

to minimise the risk of intervention being required<br />

in the near future. Although metal spraying can be<br />

regarded as the most long-lived form of treatment<br />

for outdoor iron and steel (other than environmental<br />

control) it is very intrusive, particularly when applied<br />

to riveted structures. However when balanced<br />

against a desire for cost-beneficial treatment and a<br />

simple improvement, the form of treatment can be<br />

seen as both ethical and desirable.<br />

The treatment of the ss Great Britain in the early<br />

part of the 21 st century represented a complete<br />

change in how she was viewed. This was bought<br />

about in large measure by the Heritage Lottery<br />

Fund’s decision to fund the appointment of a fulltime<br />

professional curator and to provide a budget<br />

for a serious review of the ship. These measures<br />

214<br />

not only resulted in conservation-led treatment<br />

proposal but also an increasing understanding of<br />

the importance of the whole of the ship’s working<br />

life. This led to her designation as a museum object,<br />

to be conserved as such, and to her becoming the<br />

heart of a “Victorian dockyard”. Paradoxically this<br />

appeared to conflict with the legal situation. For as a<br />

built structure of heritage significance the dock had<br />

been given ‘listed’ status whereas as a moveable<br />

object the ship was not. This meant that various<br />

legal constraints which applied to the dock did not<br />

apply to the ship. In the event however, the dock<br />

received rather more intrusive treatment than the<br />

ship. These compromises were in part due to the<br />

fact that various engineering works were required to<br />

stabilise the dock (to safeguard both ship and dock)<br />

but also due the fact that the conservation needs of<br />

the ship imposed the additional requirements for<br />

the treatment of the dock (e.g. foundations for the<br />

waterline plate steelwork and dehumidification plant<br />

and the control of flowing water in the dock). It is<br />

interesting to contemplate what other compromises<br />

might have be considered if the conservation<br />

management plan had not been able to attribute<br />

such overwhelming significance to the ship.<br />

Author<br />

Robert Turner and Shane Casey<br />

Eura Conservation Ltd, Unit H 10, Halesfield 19,<br />

Telford, Shropshire TF7 4QT UK<br />

UK<br />

Email: robert@eura.co.uk<br />

References<br />

[1] Cox, J. and Tanner, M. 1999. Conservation<br />

Plan for the Great Western Steamship Company<br />

Dockyard and the ss Great Britain. Volume 1.<br />

ss Great Britain Trust<br />

[2] Turner, R, Turner R, Casey, S, and Tanner, M,<br />

1999. Conservation Plan for the Great Western<br />

Steamship Company Dockyard and the ss<br />

Great Britain. Volume 2 – Condition report and<br />

recommendations for the ss Great Britain. ss<br />

Great Britain Trust. http://www.eura.co.uk/ssgb<br />

(April 2005)

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!