To all of you asking about the lack of staff, I'm pretty sure she visited on a weekday, considering the small crowd and only electric cars seen operating. Usually there are enough on the weekends. As a volunteer there, I'm pretty sure I've heard they're planning to start a docent program. I guess IRM is lucky to even be open on weekdays, considering many museum are only open on weekends.

Yep, I can't count the number of times I've had someone try to do the 'tour guide' thing at a museum when I went to see something specific or didn't have a lot of time. That, or I already knew the subject quit well already.
Generally, the only times I'd needed or wanted a tour was when I'm in another country when I don't speak the language. My wife and I went to Europe in May and we got guided tours everywhere we went and it was well worth the money (but even then, such as a day-long Normandy landing zone tour, we got a specific tour that addressed the areas I really came there to see).
There's also the concept that such a guide will experience people who know the subject and some that won't. You can't give the same talk to each of them without losing either half the time.
I addressed this issue in this thread a wile back: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=41710&

I don't see this as a random tourist doing a video on part of a tour, but more of a semiprofessional blogger whose needs (for her audiences sake) are to keep the action fast and images coming, and to avoid dwelling on any particular thing, whether it is of particular interest to her or not. So, it's like those "reality" programs in that it's entirely not real. She does show interpretive signs, etc, but without leaving them visible long enough to read them beyond headlines.

Real people have attention spans that exceed 2 seconds IF something interests us - if not, we walk past and move on. So, it's a bit of an overview, but is it an accurate one?

Judging by how this woman is made up, and her other posted videos, I believe this is much more about Ashley than it is about Trainz!

I had an exchange with her on YouTube. She seems to be the kind of person we would want to cultivate to come to our museums and tourist railroads. She actually has some old railroad glass and signal pieces in her collection and would like to find out more about them. She also would like to go back to IRM and get in that ride she missed out on when she was there. She apparently arrived later in the day, and got caught up looking through the barns and realized too late when they were about to close. She doesn't look that much different than a lot of Millennials I have seen. Lots of ink and that kind of hairstyle are very common. She sounded very normal.

Looking back at what's been said here, it tends to bring to mind what I have come to believe is our biggest problem as railway preservationists. How do we portray ourselves and the history we preserve, and is it done in a way that the average joe can understand and find interesting? By in large I'd have to say that most of what we do can come across as boring to someone with no knowledge or interest in what we do... While I love all the details I can gather and digest, most people don't and I'd argue that comes down to how people (especially many in my generation) look at history. If we want to change that we'd have to start changing the method that we portray that information. I've been thinking about how to structure something like this for a while, but I'd argue that there's two approaches that could work very well for us. The top of that list is the format of The Great War on Youtube. Indy Nidel and his team do a fantastic job breaking down World War One, and I'm of the belief that using their format of general overview with branches off to specific topics (all while keeping it short, simple and to the point) can work wonders. The other option is to follow the format laid out by Nicholas Moran, Wargaming's in-house historian. His articles and videos are not just excellent information, but they're presented in a way that keeps your attention. It's not that classic third person analytical and dry view of history, but a more personal style of assessment of very specific topics (usually around specific vehicles, programs or ideas).

I think for most people, the approach of PBS with the American Experience series, and the Ken Burns documentaries, that take the stories of individuals, and what happened to them during the larger events being covered, probably has the most resonance with the most people. It's something that has meaning on a personal level. That is necessary for the public at-large to be able to identify with why they should care about the artifacts we care so much about.

I did watch the video, and I did cringe a little bit. But here's what I took away:

1) She was curious and not sure what to expect when she began her visit.

2) While she was being a little silly at times, our host enjoyed exploring the passenger cars, and really seemed to enjoy the variety of trains she was seeing. Lesson: Having cars open to tour is a good start for expanding existing exhibits.

3) Our video host was excited by "junk!" That made me cringe, be she loved seeing and feeling all of the rusty train parts she could get her hands on. I don't know how to turn this excitement into a repeatable visitor experience, because not everyone likes seeing or touching junk piles.

4) Textures and colors were very important. Note how much of her narration is about how things feel or what color they are. Lesson: Having items your visitors can see up close and touch are important.

5) "There's no sign saying not to climb up here, so I am." I cringed during a few moments in the video where it looked like she was walking somewhere she shouldn't or climbing up somewhere she shouldn't... But there was no sign. Lesson: If you want to keep visitors out of certain areas or off equipment, either post it or rope it off or both.

6) "Where is everybody?" Our host did a great job of entertaining herself, she seemed to enjoy exploring all the barns and displays, but a few times she was not only looking for visitors, but seemed to be inviting a tour guide to join her. Lesson: While most museums are good with "on your own" tours, having a volunteer around to keep an eye on things and occasionally answer questions helps.

6a) "Where is everybody?" I sort of got the impression that our host was expecting a guided tour, or more direction on where she was supposed to go and what she was supposed to see. Perhaps more signage would be appropriate? "THIS WAY TO TRAIN RIDES" or "THIS WAY TO EXHIBITS" or "GIFT SHOP THIS WAY" - You don't want your museum to turn into a maze of signs, but carefully placed wayfinding guides never hurt.

7) She purchased a ticket, but never actually took a train ride. Obviously she was so caught up in "discovering" what was all around her, either she forgot, or ran out of time. I also got the impression she was visiting on an "off day" as it didn't seem very busy. I wonder if she was there on a special event day with more visitors and more trains if her video would have taken a different turn. Seems like she wandered around the museum amusing herself just fine, though.

-otto-

You could read the comment exchange I had with her on YouTube. She said she was there on a Saturday and was very surprised at the lack of patronage and volunteers. Didn't say what date, but perhaps early in the "season"? She also said that the lack of keep off signs to her indicated it was OK to climb on equipment. Remember, a lot of museums in the past 20 years have very deliberately become more "hands on" in order to make them more interesting to kids and families. Obviously, signage practices need to be updated accordingly.

Actually, she is incorrect on that point. There is a general "rules of behavior" sign at the museum entrance, which, of course, no one ever stops to read. I suspect it is also on the tickets, and property map handout, but would have to check... of course, no one ever reads that, either.

Part of the problem with NO CLIMBING ON EQUIPMENT signs is they tend to be ignored unless they are actually fastened TO the equipment, where they then detract from its appearance. I remember years ago just about everything had white 8" X 12" NO CLIMBING signs wired to the ladders, and it looked like hell. It also didn't keep people, especially kids, off.

[quote="Otto Vondrak3) Our video host was excited by "junk!" That made me cringe, be she loved seeing and feeling all of the rusty train parts she could get her hands on. I don't know how to turn this excitement into a repeatable visitor experience, because not everyone likes seeing or touching junk piles.-otto-[/quote]

I'm associated with a place that is concerned about "looking like a junkyard." If you are interpreting a shortline or industrial line, appropriate context IS like a junkyard. Visit Railtown in Jamestown, CA - they wisely didn't clean up all the wonderful patina.

I think if you actually provide the context you don't have to worry about it if it fits in - in fact, you may need to bring in more of the right kind of junk. I'm always struck by the sterility of the roundhouse at Spencer, you could perform surgery in it, and it feels "wrong" to me for that reason... of course, I remember working there before it was cleaned up.

An interesting interpretation!! Part of the "immersive experience," if you're talking about a shortline, or a logging road, or even a Class I.

The key, of course, is "the right type of junk" and its presentation. One thing I noticed was that the "junk" was laid out neatly, not just thrown in a heap, and everything was still orderly--more so than what you would find in real life, actually.

I would also add that if possible, shop tours or a library or exhibit of progress made on cars and locomotives would show how the "junk" gets transformed into the beautiful equipment we can see.

Of course, it helps if you have enough staff and volunteers to actually do things! That's not always easy, as has been discussed here in other forums.

Regarding questions of how equipment was built, the museums and the railroad history community have always had the option of talking to the designers of the equipment to help tell its story, provided they were willing to take the time and effort to locate them. Hal Hamilton, Dick Dilworth, Max Ephraim, Fred Tromel, and many others who were influential in the development of equipment in the 1940s and 1950s were all in retirement during the period when our national railroad historical groups existed and some of the railroad museums had been established.

I wonder how many of the museums and historical groups actually made an effort to reach out to them.

PC