Posted by Andy Clayton on May 22, 2007 at 17:04:22 from 83.104.41.160 user cousin_jack.
In Reply to: Re: The Cutty Sark - The ship that died of shame. posted by Peter H on May 22, 2007 at 15:56:59:
In the days of the wooden walls, fire was THE danger that all feared. All that timber and tar was a distinct liability. Add in all the other combustibles, gun-powder, whale oil, cargo, sails, rigging, and it is unlikely the average ship would pass a health & safety inspection today.
If you restore/preserve one of these things, how much do you rip-out to replace with flame-retardent materials? If you start lagging the woodwork with asbestos you're heading in the wrong direction.
On the subjet of restoration quality, I believe Nelsons Victory at Portsmouth is in a similar state to the old Cutty Sark, her masts are hollow steel, 90% of the woodwork has been replaced and the masts are also firmly fixed to the dock bed.
It's a problem that bedevils a lot of restoration projects. Costs are the key factor. Wholesale replacement, either through its life or at the time of preservation means what is left of the original is minimal. Also if a ship or something else has had several guises or roles over the years one has to decide on which period of its life to present. To make a ship seaworthy would mean almost compleat replacement of vital parts so it would no longer be the ship we all knew and loved. I am reminded of the Irish-man's broom. (Can I still say things like that?)