I have encountered people in the railway preservation business who were very opinionated on this issue - I have been known to express my own ideas pretty forcefully - and I would be interested to hear from some people on RyPN. The question is what people think about historical authenticity. Railway preservation can often be sorted into two oversimplified groups: museums and tourist operations. Disregarding any connotations that these names might bring, my question is how important people in both types of organization think historical authenticity is. Even among "museums," there are wide differences as to how far to go for "authentic" restoration. Are there any museums that have defined when and where true historical authenticity can be set aside? Obviously there are circumstances under which it would be nearly impossible to completely restore something authentically: environmental concerns about asbestos and lead paint, safety features like modern fire extinguishers and first aid boxes, missing parts that cannot be reproduced except at astronomical expense. These should probably be seen as necessary evils in any kind of active restoration program; the question applies more when historical authenticity is set aside because it is either unwelcome, inconvenient or not locally significant.

So, I pose you a question: where does one draw the line between a railway museum and a tourist railway?

>In 15 years of reporting on preservation, I've talked with a lot of people who seem to think authenticity is a dirty word. The reasons why "it can't be done" vary widely from simple misinformation to the big wallet/big ego syndrome.

I too can understand that not everything can be perfectly authentic in restoration, nor should it always be. But what bothers me most is that so many aren't even interested in pursuing it as a goal. Those who spend big bucks on private cars and dinner trains often do a lot of historic damage to the artifacts they "preserve", with the attitude "it's mine and I can do whatever I want with it". An unhistoric paint job is one thing, gutting an interior is another. The burning desire to get something running in a hurry often leads groups to collect disparate rolling stock that has nothing to do with the track they run on. Once collected and made operable, there is seldom an effort to rationalize it for more appropriate items. And most disturbing to me is that so few see potential in developing historic structures, especially some of the few remaining steam roundhouses, as authentic motive power museums. The rail preservation movement has come quite a ways in the last 15 years, but authenticity is seldom a priority. I think that has a lot to do with why the general public and media often still see us as big kids playing with trains.

I have encountered people in the railway
> preservation business who were very
> opinionated on this issue - I have been
> known to express my own ideas pretty
> forcefully - and I would be interested to
> hear from some people on RyPN. The question
> is what people think about historical
> authenticity. Railway preservation can often
> be sorted into two oversimplified groups:
> museums and tourist operations. Disregarding
> any connotations that these names might
> bring, my question is how important people
> in both types of organization think
> historical authenticity is. Even among
> "museums," there are wide
> differences as to how far to go for
> "authentic" restoration. Are there
> any museums that have defined when and where
> true historical authenticity can be set
> aside? Obviously there are circumstances
> under which it would be nearly impossible to
> completely restore something authentically:
> environmental concerns about asbestos and
> lead paint, safety features like modern fire
> extinguishers and first aid boxes, missing
> parts that cannot be reproduced except at
> astronomical expense. These should probably
> be seen as necessary evils in any kind of
> active restoration program; the question
> applies more when historical authenticity is
> set aside because it is either unwelcome,
> inconvenient or not locally significant.

> So, I pose you a question: where does one
> draw the line between a railway museum and a
> tourist railway?


Railway Preservation News
ryarger1@nycap.rr.com

> So, I pose you a question: where does one
> draw the line between a railway museum and a
> tourist railway?

In its simplest form, the answer is one of mission and goals. Museums have goals of interpreting history, conservation of things that help in that process. Tourist railroads are in the entertainment business, and may or may not choose a nostalgic / historic theme for their offered entertainment.

In todays world, museums must obtain resources from the private sector to accomplish their goals and offer reasons for the public to support them. One very good way to reach the public is through entertainment which does help them understand the mission. Compromises are a modern requirement in the parts of the collections that are set aside for that use.

Ironically, lots of tourist railroads find that history is marketable too, but have no ethical or moral imperative to refuse to compromise authenticity to carry out their mission. Disney World runs some fine trains and trolleys which are replicas of things that never existed in the real world down main streets from Norman Rockwell paintings which, were they real historic streets, would be mud fouled with manure.

Colonial Williamsburg should be mud fouled with manure but they can't. Our laws and realities prohibit it, and the not quite complete picture can be offered to the public successfully because they have made that compromise. The public learns a lot about colonial life as a result, even if they are missing out on disease and fragrances.

One of the hardest things I have to do as a curator is determine what level of compromise is comfortable. This sort of thing is best decided on a case by case basis although many prefer a comittee to set policies (which can prevent some progress or cause loss of historic fabric). I never met a comittee which was not dumber than its slowest member and avoid them as a result.

So, the answer is intentions tempered by compromise for good reason and integrity in making those choices. Realities often change over time, so a general giudeline of changing the least is a good basic concept.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

I agree completely with Bob. It would be impossible to completely restore the trains and their setting. Railway museums shouldn't necessarily try to be a time machine as much as a time capsule.

But it does seem odd that so many locations make no effort whatsoever to achieve historical authenticity, and indeed go out of their way to do just the opposite. There are railways out there that call themselves "museums" and yet they spend thousands of dollars to turn old coaches into modernistic dining cars for dinner trains, put air conditioning in equipment that didn't originally have it, and indulge in other eccentricities. This type of behavior, though it has the potential to bring in an arguable amount of extra income, does not save money in the initial restoration and does nothing to preserve history in any way. It merely juxtaposes modern-day technology and styles with antique railway equipment.

Tourist railways are not bad; far from it. They serve a definite purpose as agents of enjoyment, and allow the public to experience a train ride in a presumably relaxing setting. However, I think that any place that calls itself a museum should not engage in this sort of modernization.

More along this thread . . . opinions, please, on restoration projects that involve so much new material that integrity of the artifact is lost. For example, restoring a steam locomotive to operation, but replacing the boiler in the process? At what point should a "museum" put a piece of equipment "off limits" for restoration to service?

Alan

AMaples@aol.com

> More along this thread . . . opinions,
> please, on restoration projects that involve
> so much new material that integrity of the
> artifact is lost. For example, restoring a
> steam locomotive to operation, but replacing
> the boiler in the process? At what point
> should a "museum" put a piece of
> equipment "off limits" for
> restoration to service?

Personally, I don't think it is irresponsible to replace a worn part of a locomotive to make it operable again. Take the USS Constitution for instance. If she had all of her original wood hull, she would be at the bottom of the sea by now. In this case it depends on what is to be done with the equipment. Is it to be operated or displayed? Some boilers won't pass certification and have to be replaced.

Stuart


gnufe@apex.net

> Personally, I don't think it is irresponsible to replace a worn part of a
> locomotive to make it operable again.

Well, if you were in another kind of museum would you feel comfortable with replacing the fabric of a dress or coat because it was worn or had moth holes in it? Or would you feel better conserving the artifact and not altering it?

Railway museums may be museums of large outdoor objects and interpret using living history experiences; but, they are part of a larger preservation community and need to make collection decisions as part of the larger community.

Brian Norden

bnorden@gateway.net

> Personally, I don't think it is
> irresponsible to replace a worn part of a
> locomotive to make it operable again. Take
> the USS Constitution for instance. If she
> had all of her original wood hull, she would
> be at the bottom of the sea by now. In this
> case it depends on what is to be done with
> the equipment. Is it to be operated or
> displayed? Some boilers won't pass
> certification and have to be replaced.

As a full-time railroad museum professional, I can tell you first hand that the term "museum" is often misused. Just because a tourist line runs a steam locomotive and some old coaches does not make them a "museum".

IMHO I believe that for a museum (whether it deals with railroad subject matter or not) to call itself as such they must be a permanent institution; provide a building or space chiefly for the presentation and/or exhibition of collections on a regular basis; employ a professional staff; provide visitors an interpretive, educational experience; be exempt from federal and state income taxes; and have a catalogued collection of artifacts for the purpose of study and enjoyment. If the experience is operating a train ride and they can satisfy the other requirements, then they can legitimately call themselves a museum. If they are a for-profit entity and peddle themselves as a museum, they are technically not a museum.

Concerning the debate over preservation "terminology," the term "restoration" is also often misused. Most tourist operations rehabilitate old trains to use them--this is consumption of an artifact for daily use. In fact, I could almost wager that many railroad museums have never even formally conserved a piece--that is, preserve as much of the original (or in-service) fabric as is possible, rather than hack apart the artifact and make it brand new. Whether this is a good practice (or not) is not the point of this writer, but rather to draw your attention to the subtleties (or abuse) of preservation terminology.

Why would a railroad museum do this? Preserving old fabric tells us much about the maker of the vehicle, the context of the times in which it was used, the materials which utilized, etc. Studying a railroad artifact like a historic structure is often the best approach--like examining an old house, a historic railroad vehicle can be read carefully and methodically, showing subtle (or major) changes and alterations over time. So much contextual information can be learned about the people and machines of the past.

A distinction must be made between operating tourist railroads (i.e. Strasburg RR, D&S, Grand Canyon), museums with an operating train ride experience (CSRM, B&O Museum, Spencer, NSRM, Steamtown NHS) and museums which exhibit static examples for the sake of interpretation (RR Museum of PA, ARMM, Smithsonian).

There are very fine shades of meaning in regard to preservation terminology that must be considered--restoration, conservation, rehabilitation and reconstruction all have different definitions. The term "restoration" is not a catch-all definition. Document NPS-28, available online through the Department of the Interior, outlines much of this discussion.

Kurt Bell

> Stuart

> In its simplest form, the answer is one of mission and goals. Museums have goals of
> interpreting history, conservation of things that help in that process. Tourist railroads
> are in the entertainment business, and may or may not choose a nostalgic / historic
> theme for their offered entertainment.

One problem is that most railway museums began not only for preserving the passing railway technology and equipment, but also as a means for the founding members to run their own railway or streetcar operation. In time the realization came that being a "museum" means having a mission statement based on preservation and education and holding to that mission statement. Some railroad museums are still maturing and in doing so developing mission statements, collection policies, and conservation programs.

I suspect that there are "museums" out there (of all kinds) that exist just to fullfill a desire to collect and show off the collection. Among railway museums this may put operation and income above preseration and conservation.

Brian Norden

bnorden@gateway.net

hit my feelings right on the head. All museum struggle with this issue - railroad museum included.

JimLundquist55@yahoo.com

> I have encountered people in the railway
> preservation business who were very
> opinionated on this issue - I have been
> known to express my own ideas pretty
> forcefully -

Just for the record, Frank, I don't have ANY strong opinions about this ;-)

My view is that we are too equipment-centric in general. We tend to focus on (in order) the locomotive, the caboose or passenger cars, the station building, the freight cars. We don't think about the experience, and how it all fits together.

We paint 4x8 boards with specs on boiler pressure, driver diameter, cylinder dimensions, etc. - things the average visitor knows or cares nothing about. And we utterly fail to convey to them what the damn thing was used for. (In other words, we plan our displays to educate people who already know.)

I hereby declare the "R.P.O test." To wit, most passenger trains lasted as long as they did because of mail contracts. There are hundreds of examples of train-off petitions and branchline abandonments immediately after a line or train loses its RPO.

How many RPOs do you see in service at "railroad museums?"

"Railroad Museums" have an almost unique challenge. It's not enough simply to put a piece on display. That's perfectly sufficient for the bishop's ceremonial duds, the Rosetta Stone and all the statuary in the British Museum - it's absolutely necessary for the Constitution (the document, not the ship) and a mummy.

Most of these things can be related to without actually seeing it in action. We understand paper, statues were meant to be looked at anyway, and I wouldn't want to see the mummy coming toward me.

A railroad wasn't a statue or a bishop's bejewelled robe, but our display ethos treats the equipment that way - i.e., that it's enough to see it, and you will understand the world from the grain of sand on the running board.

The railroad existed as a piece of industrial equipment for the purpose of making money by providing a service. Just displaying a locomotive and cars doesn't convey the importance of the railroad to a population that has never ridden a train and which never thinks about railroads. You have to start at "ground zero" - set the mood as it were, take them back to a time before TV, 727s, SUVs and paved roads. Slow them down, show them not only the equipment but the pace of life, the social nature of the station, make them aware that, slow as trains were, inefficient as steam locomotives were, they were the best thing available for 100 years.

From that perspective, whether that P70 has glass or Lexan windows, or the proper upholstery, or whether that particular car ran on this particular line, can be less important. Certainly some pieces of equipment should be conserved and preserved (as defined by the Secretary of the Interior); as for the rest, "adaptive reuse" is not a dirty word.

So a "station" serving a three-car train pulled by an SW1 isn't a museum. A station (with baggage on the wagon and LCL on the freight platform) serving a properly constituted train can be.

Maybe we should add a third category - museum, tourist line, and big trainset for railfans who establish a 501(c)(3) corporation to get a tax deduction to play with big toys.

Not that I'm opinionated or anything . . . ;-)

JAC

> My view is that we are too equipment-centric
> in general. We tend to focus on (in order)
> the locomotive, the caboose or passenger
> cars, the station building, the freight
> cars. We don't think about the experience,
> and how it all fits together.

> We paint 4x8 boards with specs on boiler
> pressure, driver diameter, cylinder
> dimensions, etc. - things the average
> visitor knows or cares nothing about. And we
> utterly fail to convey to them what the damn
> thing was used for. (In other words, we plan
> our displays to educate people who already
> know.)

I couldn't agree more. Nearly all of our museum organizations go through (or still need to go through) a painful transition from private club to legitmate cultural conservation organization. This transition is all the more painful becuase the founding members of the club are usually the people least well equipped to explain the significance of the technology to the general public--they are so immersed in and entranced by the details that they can't pull back and take the 10,000 foot view.

To add to John's RPO test I propose the boiler pressure and superheater test: if your Museum's interpretive placards concentrate on telling what the thing is in railway lingo instead of explaining what it did and how it was important to Americans' daily lives in plain and engaging English, you flunk.

Changing to another subject, Kurt makes a critical distinction when he invents the third category of "Museums with an operating train ride experience." At the B&O Museum in Baltimore, artifacts and rolling stock are classified into two categories: permanent collection and use collection. The permanent collection includes all objects and stock of lasting historical value which should be conserved for future generations. They are not used in day to day revenue service, though they may be moved or operated on an extremely limited basis for special occaisions. By contrast the use collection is meant to interpret railroading by running--it is understood that in the process, the collection will be consumed.

For other thoughts on these issues, I refer everyone to John White's seminal article on Facadism in L&RP--don't have the issue number but I'll try to dig it up tonight.



eledbetter@rypn.org

This is beginning to sound a lot like some discussions we have had before on this board but as always, there will be no simple answers that apply to every situation.

For those who are concerned about facadism and its effect on "real" museums please consider the plans now proposed by the Smithsonian - presumably an entity we aren't going to confuse with a full scale train set.

Their concern is that 1401 has no context to its display. Looks like a valid concern to me. 1401 ran from Charlotte to Salisbury a lot, so thier answer is to recreats the Salisbury depot as a facade in DC in their building to provide "meaningful context".

Fine and well, but why not just put 1401 in the real Salisbury depot? Hard to provide more meaningful context than reality, and a perfectly good roundhouse is just down the track a couple miles for maintenence.

If the Smithsonian is comfortable with false facades to provide context, maybe the rest of us should take another look? Or, should we reconsider the Smithsonian's credentials?

There aren't many places where a real and full picture or experience can be offered. CATS should accurately be running many more freights in between their passenger trains for a complete picture of the D&RG. Lots of timber should be shipped through the Jamestown mainline of the Sierra behind 28. Steamtown should be running 60 MPH to Jersey, and connecting with a steam powered ferry. Golden Spike NHS has a building collection that doesn't even attempt to recreate the original visitors facilities that were there on May 10, 1869.

Given the resources all these institutions have that the rest of us never will, how do we stand a snowballs chance in hades of doing a better job of interpretation than their efforts?

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

I'd like to apologize, at the moment I don't belong to a museum, but I am a member of The Horsless Carriage Club of America and see this same argument constantly with pre 1916 cars. I think it is wrong to take an original car with original upholstery and restore it to new condition, (replacing uphostery and paint and such), but I see nothing wrong with restoring the drivetrain to make it operable and preserving the original paint and uphostery. I don't like taking an old car and restoring it as somethng it is not, when there is honest proof of what it is. I believe that when they are restored, they should be used to educate and enjoyed by the owners. I have a problem with someone that hordes cars and parts and won't ever be able to restore them and doesn't let them go to someone that will. Its the same with a wooden boat. You can't take old rotten wood and use it in the hull and expect the boat to float and fiberglassing the hull isn't historically correct. I have the same problem with museums. I don't like RR museums that horde equipment and aren't willing to part with a piece of equipment that might go with another museums theme. I also have a problem with museums that won't help other museums or people trying to start one. I don't think an Illinois Central Passenger car has anything to do with California and so on. I do think that cars can be restored to operable condition with some modern convienences without damaging the historical value of the car, if they are to be used. I have witnessed a few bad experiences with museums and realize that they probably think nothing of it after all they are established. A theme is great and education is really great, but when does a collection become a horde?

Stuart

gnufe@apex.net

It's kinda simple, Stuart, sometimes just a matter of perspective.

I collect, but [you] hoard...

I "restify" (a term borrowed from the muscle car community), but [you] chop up, ruin and destroy it, just to run it back into the ground...

I am a railfan, but [you] are a foamer...

Etc.,etc., ad nauseum. Easy to make excuses for onesself...and even easier to be critical of others.

Catfish Hollow Toys