dk nkf - Nordisk Konservatorforbund Danmark
dk nkf - Nordisk Konservatorforbund Danmark
dk nkf - Nordisk Konservatorforbund Danmark
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)