Does historic fabric have to be tangible?

Today as we were working, I was taking a minute or two just listening to the sound of the engine work. Throttle, automatic, independent, spit valves, wheel slip, even the smells of the cab, toilet, diesel exhaust, heater burning off dust after months of non-use... can any of these count as "historic fabric"? They were all part of the locomotive (or other equipment) during its real service life - do they not deserve to be preserved as well if possible?

Yeah, preserving the original materials all fine and good, but the equipment wasn't designed to be sitting in a museum either. Yes, you preserve the artifact, but you aren't preserving it's purpose.

I don't necessarily disagree with the philosophy you put forward, but it really changes the conversation to a different argument.

Either you, in the enterprise you are actually working in, feel there is a higher value in preserving the physical object, unaltered, and conveying it in that state to future generations, or you feel there is a higher value in preserving the experience and the working skills. If you feel the second way, you have gone down a fork which renders discussions of historic fabric less relevant to you because you don't agree with the basic proposition on which the entire logic of it rests. You are undertaking a different kind of preservation. And that's fine.

What I personally wouldn't sign on for is going down that second fork but dragging the definition of historic fabric along with you and extending it to cover consumptive use through operation and interpretation. Those are fine goals around which to build an excellent enterprise like Strasburg. Again, I'm all for it.

But I would only ask that we respectfully part company with the term historic fabric at that point instead of trying to change its definition. It is a very useful concept to museum curators and conservators and historic structure preservationists. They have invested a lot in it and get a lot out of it. Leave it to them to do their thing instead of trying to redefine the bedrock concepts of their enterprise.

Let me ask a question purely out of ignorance. When I talked to someone at Steamtown, he told me that they classify all rolling stock as historic structures, not historic artifacts. (The exception is the sectioned locomotive, which I think he said is an artifact.) He said that under Park Service rules, this allowed them to do things they couldn't do with an artifact .(Maybe in the maintenance and or restoration area?).

I would think that structures, normally located outdoors in the weather, would need to be painted, get new roofs, etc. to preserve them, while artifacts don't. I also know that visitors are allowed to enter portions of historic buildings and walk over historic bridges.

Could someone explain briefly what determines if something is classified as an historic structure or an artifact and what are the differences in allowable activities based on that classification?

Thanks

I happen to think that this is one of the more important threads that have ever appeared on RYPN, and has the potential to be very educational.

I wouls suppose that only someone at NPS could answer the question as to what defines an artifact vs. structure. Artifacts are objects that generally are to be conserved, be stored or displayed in controlled conditions and kept from harm. Structures are considered different since by their very nature must be maintained, which means historic fabric is replaced or repaired on a regular basis.

Thanks to the #@&%$@&$ copyright law, I cannot just repost the pertinent articles from L&RP that would answer everyone's questions on this subject. But maybe I can look through my back issues and at least point out where to look.

Here's a start:

John H. White, Jr., "Facadism: Is this Really Preservation?". L&RP #15, July-August 1988.

John H. White, Jr., "The Railway Museum: Past, Present, and Future," Technology and Culture 14, no. 4 (Oct., 1973): 599-613.

The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines on Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings: http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/index.htm

The U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Vessel Preservation Projects
http://www.hnsa.org/standa.htm

Erik,

Thank you for posting the various articles on this topic. I had not seen the standards for vessels before. In reading through the definitions it would seem to me that those fit better with rolling stock or locomotive preservation than the traditional preservation standards.

Kevin O

To me, a locomotive has a story to tell. The only real way to "preserve" the historic fabric of a locomotive would have been to have never operated it from the time it was constructed by it's builder. I have worked on several locomotives which there were several indentifiable parts on a locomotive which were not originally on that locomotive. Does ATSF 3751 look or perform the same as she did when built in 1927? SP 745 is carrying her second boiler. These changes and modifications are part of the locomotives' history, and should be considered part of the official record...their historic fabric...

Hi Kenneth--

Again, its a matter of definitions. That's why Randolph is spot on in reminding us of in underlining the importance of "period of significance" in relation to defining historic fabric earlier in the thread. I was skipping over that in my comments--he put his finger on it.

All historic fabric is, is "anything on or belonging to the artifact dating from or earlier than the period of significance." That's it. The definition of historic fabric includes and relies on the concept of period of significance.

So "historic fabric" is not a platonic ideal that starts perfect on the shop floor and then becomes ever more tarnished. It's a very practical term that (retroactively) sets the date at which the artifact stopped being a living object in daily use and started being an historic artifact to be managed according to a different set of priorities and principles.

Let's take a hypothetical T&NO freight hog 2-8-2 as an example. Kenneth, I think you are arguing that the period of significance extends through all the service life, and that the record it contains of the skills of all the workers who touched it in service is important. I agree. So if you and I were curators managing the 2-8-2 in a museum collection we would set the period of significance as starting on the construction date and ending on the date the fire was last dropped in Espee service. And voila--everything prior to that end date is now historic fabric. The last staybolt installed at the last shopping is as privileged as the original frame. It's all equally historic fabric--just as a function of dating to the period of significance.

However, let's say we then sold the 2-8-2 to the National World War II museum to be used as part of a permanent exhibit about the home front. The WWII Museum curator might be perfectly justified in setting the period of significance as 1941-1945 and then writing a plan to have actual SP in-service modifications dating later than 1945 removed during the next restoration. What's historic depends on the period of significance, which is chosen by the custodian, and can be and often is influenced by the organization's mission.

So just as Randolph implied, choosing the right period of significance is a non-trivial thing. This whole historic fabric/period of significance thing is really all about having a framework for making sound, internally-consistent decisions--it does not dictate the outcome of those decisions. Indeed, two different custodians might make opposite decisions for the same artifact and each be "right"--in light of their different missions.

Maybe we should make sure we all agree what the term "historic fabric" means. Searching around on the web I haven't found a definition. Eric has defined "historic" above, but not the word "fabric". I think the term means "stuff", solid material such as iron, steel, glass, wood, paint, textiles, etc. It does not mean the smell of steam smoke, the sound of the exhaust events, or the feel of riding a train. The term has nothing to do with recreating and sharing with the public the experience of railroading from times past.

Assuming that definition is correct, it is clear that using the object for the purpose origninally intended almost certainly "destroys" some historic fabric.

It seems to me that institutions can elect to classify historic objects as artifacts if their intent is to put them away in storage for future generations or to display them in highly controlled environments, so the "fabric" erodes away at the slowest possible rate. (Nothing lasts forever.)

If the objects cannot be moved indoors (historic park buildings as an example), and/or if the intent is to "use" the objects in some way consistent with their historic use, for example to enhance the educational experience, they can classify them as structures. In the case of structures ( and vessels) the Interior Department guidelines only require that the historic fabic should be retained to the extent feasible, consistent with their use and with modern safety codes.


Since Steamtown, as a NPS facility, is subject to NPS regulations, and they classify railroad rolling stock as structures, apparently this is consistent with Department of the Interior regulations.

Yes, exactly.

From the Preservation Glossary of the Architectural Heritage Center:

"Material: the physical elements that were combined or deposited to form a property. Historic material or historic fabric is that from a historically significant period, as opposed to material used to maintain or restore a property following its historic period(s)." http://www.visitahc.org/node/47



Yep, pretty much. Historic fabric is a concept that comes into play when you make the prior decision that preservation of the physical material that dates from a specified period of significance is your highest goal.



Yes, exactly--pretty much by definition. This all comes from a set of ideas that includes, at its bedrock, the principle that the object has now been forever removed from it life as a daily use object, and is now managed according to different goals--specifically, that indefinite preservation of its physical material is a high goal. Objects under preservation, within this framework of ideas, are by definition not in "daily use" (meaning used, modified, used up, broken, replaced, altered etc. in whatever way utility and owner whims dictate).

And that is where we in railroad preservation seem sometimes to get into trouble. [Now let me say that with this sentence I am getting away from PJS's specific questions, and going off on my own to get back (again? still?) on my soapbox.]

US Railway heritage has a cultural and bias toward operating preservation. To drop the highfalutin language--we get a kick out of running stuff and like to share that kick with others. Our hearts seem to be more affiliated with living history than with, say, the historic house/Department of the Interior Standards community. And I say that's fine.

But these ideas we are talking about here all come from an alternative frame of reference from the one many of us use, a frame of reference in which preservation of the physical material of the object is the higher priority.

We don't need to be defensive or thin-skinned when we encounter this set of ideas. There is no horde of critics trying to shut down Strasburg or D&S or my museum's demonstration trolley line in the name of historic fabric. The Secretary of the Interior is not coming after us with an injunction. Nor is there a horde of academics churning out papers heaping scorn on us (basically academics don't know or care that we exist and are not likely to for the forseeable future--which is maybe their loss, but whatever).

These are just concepts, folks. They are interesting ideas from kindred communities. Specifically, they come from a lot of guys and gals who have as much hands-on cred as we do: people who fix old barns, restore houses, adaptively reuse buildings, and repair wooden boats. Most of 'em we'd probably really like if we met 'em. And some of 'em are also us.

We should try to engage with them and understand them, and see what we can and can't learn from their ideas, secure in the knowledge that in the end we still get to make our own choices about what to do with our own stuff.

We don't need to apologize to anyone if after thinking we decide to pursue a different kind of preservation (specifically, what the historic house and ship crowd would call "rehabilitation" or "adaptive use") and manage our stuff accordingly.

Continuing this purely theoretical discussion, I agree with everything Eric says (including the fact that most railroad museums are in the "rehabilitation or adaptive use mode" at best ), except for the sentence quoted above, which implies that railroad rolling stock cannot be both preserved and operated. Both of the standards (buildings and vessels) clearly state that structures can both be "preserved" in the formal sense and continue to be used as they were historically.

I would assume from the published building preservation standards that people are allowed to "use" historic buildings that are being "preserved" in the Term of Art sense. They walk on the floors, go up the stairs (or use the recently added elevator required by modern codes), maybe turn the door knobs and open the door, and are allowed to view the interior. Interior lighting is presumably provided, probably converted to electricity to meet code. Historic fabric is being distroyed every time someone walks on the floor. The interior paint and "fabic" fabric are being slowly altered by the light added to allow viewing. Some amount of historic fabric was distroyed by modifications to meet modern codes to allow this "use" by the public. Yet I assume that this "use" does not kick the structure down a category from "preservation" to "rehabilitation".

Of course buildings don't move (or at least not often!). but vessels do. Reading the vessel standards, use of the vessel is clearly permitted in the "preservation" category.

By analogy, it should be acceptable under certain circumstances to operate preserved railroad equipment down the tracks with people aboard, which of course is the correct historic use.

Excellent point that Txhighballer makes. So, what is/are the goals of your museum? To have a bunch of artifacts on display with (hopefully) meaningful and educational information? Or to present a sense of history.

Our Museum does not have a museum building. We have a smaller station replica with a ticket/merchandise counter and small waiting area with about 25 running feet of shallow display cases running along the station's walls. Not much of a "museum."

So how do we meet our mission statement? By telling the story through running our historic Minnesota streetcars. To give our passengers some sense of what it was like to ride, hear, feel, smell a streetcar. We also have a goal to preserve the knowledge and skills to maintain and operate the streetcars, something that the passengers oftentimes don't realize but a goal that might be as important as running the streetcars. We're at the point now where virtually all Minnesotans have never ridden a streetcar and most probably don't know what one is. We're a "living history" museum preserving a technology and a cultural aspect that permeated the lives of a lot of Minnesotans not so long ago.

We are lucky that our collection is all Minnesota and we operate on a preserved streetcar right-of-way. That makes our interpretive and educational task somewhat easier.

Regards a previous statement about non-tangible fabric. I think most of us would agree that when we say fabric we're talking about material items. However, what our Museum is trying to do since we don't have a museum building is to create a sense, a feeling of what it was like to ride a streetcar. To do that we need to run the streetcar and running the streetcar means that things wear, wear out or break down. We could not accomplish our missions unless we ran our cars and told their story as best we can. While doing that the fabric of the streetcar by necessity must change.

And then, we have three streetcars that we rescued from their second "lives" as cabins or backyard sheds. They're genuine Minnesota streetcars operating with parts from wherever including one car with trucks from Japan. What is the fabric for those artifacts? These cars certainly help us meet our mission. And then there's our 1893 LaClede-built single trucker that ran in Duluth. What's the fabric of that car when it has probably has no more than 15-20 percent of it's historic fabric after its restoration was finished in 1990.

Thanks!

And experiential interpretation is what the vast majority of our visitors wish to have provided them - along with clean, modern restrooms. They could also find it hard to care less about whether the car they are riding or the locomotive up there somewhere ran on the current bit of rail before it was retired, or if all the bolts on it came from the original construction date.

Technogeeks and academics like us do care, and understand our responsibility to maintain good examples of unchanged material, while also providing the most vibrant, meaningful interpretive experience possible to our visitors. By having more than one set of stuff, we can do both effectively, but only if we suceed in the first place.

Our museum is everything our visitors experience through all their senses from the first time they become aware of us in our advertising material until they review the souveniers and photos they take away with them, and the more effectively we engage them, the more of everything we wish to accomplish we can do.

In other words, stop beating this dead horse and worry about the things that matter much more instead. If we haven't got it about this by now we're hopeless. Could use St Louis Dave's little image right about now.

dave

There are a few things about locomotives that complicate this issue.

A locomotive is a commercial tool, with only a very few exceptions they are built to be operated. And if it has any problems whatsoever, things start to get changed very quickly. As was pointed out by the late John Kirkland, and has seldom been mentioned by any authors since, the process of changing details of a locomotive begins very soon after it arrives on the customers property. The builder finds out that there is a problem with the design of a component, or a system does not operate as well as it should, or the customer does not like some feature of the equipment, and the process of making modifications begins. Sometimes these are handled on a product line basis, sometimes on an individual customer basis. And occasionally the builder comes out with a sweeping revision that is applicable to all equipment with a particular engine or system (as with the EMD "Modernization Recommendations") and it is the customer's individual decision whether they want to spend the money to install it on their locomotives or not. Consequently two locomotives from the same manufacturer and of the same model can end up somewhat different depending on the decisions made by their owner railroad's managements, and in both cases the configurations may have been documented and approved by the manufacturer.

I have seen some with 150 or more documented post production changes.

Determining what is "historic fabric" might be more of a project than you expect.

There a lot of basic issues that need attention in this industry. I would suggest some concern for matters like getting the websites up to date so people can locate and contact the museums and historical organizations. Historic fabric could be the subject for an article in the first issue of that "Internet Journal of Preservation" that was discussed here three or four years ago, or maybe an article for RYPN.

PC