I feel quite fortunate that the context in which I usually have to "interpret" equipment to my audience (professional railroaders) is the way it was configured when new. At that time it is clean and undamaged!

But wait a minute, don't most museums display equipment clean and undamaged too?

What happened to all that historical fabric? (The dirt and the damage, the rust holes in the carbody, the oil and sand on the catwalks, the leaking sodium chromate water treatment, etc.)

PC

Mr. Cook, I have a feeling you are being sarcastic, and against my better judgment I feel some sarcasm welling up in response. So pardon me if I am very direct.

Sir, what is your point, in plain speech?

Is your point that preservation is a highly artificial state, and that artifacts under preservation are not in the same condition they were in when they were just items of capital equipment in daily use? I don't think anyone disputes that.

Are you saying that when a museum arrests specific sources of decay in an artifact--by removing rust, or draining fluids, or plugging leaks--that they are hypocrites, because taking even simple and obvious steps of conservation (not restoration, conservation) alter the object?

In that case maybe I can speak for all curators and conservators and just plead guilty to the crime of irrational thoughts and actions if that helps.

Because yes--conservation and preservation are irrational. We are trying to arrest the second law of thermodynamics. This is, in scientific terms, a fool's errand. Anyone who does any kind of preservation is making an aesthetic gesture--standing at the Second Law and screaming "Nooooooo!". From the point of view of physics this is so obvious as to be non-illuminating.

So maybe we can agree on this point: conservation and preservation are aesthetic, not scientific, gestures. And therefore any rubric for making decisions about conservation and preservation--which is what the concept of historic fabric is--is a set of aesthetic criteria, not scientific or engineering criteria. It is an attempt to carve out a limited, contingent bubble of partly rational thinking in the middle of a patently irrational enterprise.

And when it comes to aesthetics, we each get our own. Mine may not be yours. You are welcome to yours, as I am to mine.

What I just don't get the jihad by some RyPN posters against the concept of historic fabric. It's not a scientific law--it's a system of aesthetic thought. Take it or leave it.

And yet, every time it comes up here, some folks get horribly exercised that a handful of other folks in railroad preservation might use this concept in their work. What IS it about the concept that makes it so offensive that it must be held to scorn, mocked, poked, and frantically falsified every time it comes up? What is it about this concept that gets under people's skin so badly?

It can't be that it has some elements of irrationality in it. EVERYTHING WE DO is irrational, by the terms of the Second Law. Banning the words historic fabric from every museum in the land won't change that a bit.

So where does that leave us? What will we have won when we are safe from the pernicious heresy of historic fabric?

I don't know who I am asking--Steve RG, or Mr. Cook, or Sandy, or someone else--but what does victory look like to you? Here--I'll give you a magic wand. Wave it once and the concept of historic fabric will disappear, never to be mentioned or used again in railroad preservation. It's gone--not even remembered. As though it never were.

Now, what have we won?

I'm volunteer at Midcontinent Railway Historical Society also known as Midcontinent Railway MUSEUM. We have our feet firmly in both sides of this discussion. We have heritage and antique rolling stock that we use every day, and we have heritage and antique rolling stock that is safely, if unfortunately, tucked away in our car shed. We also are in the process of rebuilding TWO steam locomotives. In our operating railroad, we are preserving the historical fabric just as any railroad does. We are keeping our equipment in good operating order and appearance, maintaining it to fulfill our goal of historic railroad interpertation. Does the operating half of MCRHS always agree with the museum half with regard to the gems stored in the car shed? We are always having discussions about getting these artifacts out in the sunlight so that they can be seen OPERATING in their normal environment. And the "discussions" are never resolved. Our charter is to preserve and demonstrate. We do the best we can, balancing the perfect restoration with the operating restoration.

Erik, I like that "partially rational thinking" phrase!

As I noted before, I don't see anything wrong with operating equipment that is capable of being run. It might get to look more the way it did in regular service.

PC

I think part of the problem is the word fabric. I now understand it is a well-defined Term of Art in the formal museum trade, but it is an unfortunate choice since it can easily be misunderstood by us common folk. Quite often outside the traditional museum world fabric means "the underlying structure" of the thing being discussed, such as the fabric of society. One can argue that wearing out the wheels of a rail car by operating it -- and then replacing them-- does not damage the underlying structure (whatever that is) of the car but it certainly wears away the actual steel of that wheel. I actually think the other term used, historic material is clearer to most of us. Even better might be original material.

Well, let's throw this one out there. Someone has to. How about the act of operating and maintaining the equipment? This requires a unique set of skills and experiences. Aren't these skills and experiences part of railway history AND preservation? Just another angle...but I don't think anyone will dispute that.

Absolutely. Right on. Do it myself, with streetcars, merrily consuming material as I go along.

But nobody except Sandy's shadowy academic cabal (the names and persons of which I am still trying to pin down) is stopping me from doing that. And though this cabal may show up some day, so far I have yet to check in at my trolley museum and have someone pry the controller out of my hand while lecturing me about museum practices.

And even while I operate the trolley down the line, I can also think about historic fabric, all without having my head explode.

But I'm funny that way, you know--able to think about preservation in more than one way at the same time, without an overpowering need to decide which way is right, everywhere, absolutely, for all time--and impose it on every museum in the land. Some irrational guy, that Ledbetter. No principles.

Go start with the (usually graduate level) Museum Studies curriculum at major universities--Johns Hopkins, the University of Delaware (I earmed credits there in my day), Northwestern, Purdue, and many, many other universities.

First off, I believe this is an excellent discussion.
In agreement with Erik Ledbetter's statement preservationists are trying to arrest physical laws in the act of preservation. Some museums attempt to preserve historic fabric by preserving their artifacts as part of a static display. Others continue operating certain artifacts while employing good conservation practices.
Regardless of which option is chosen, entropy will effect these objects sooner or later. I suspect that in the eyes of many readers and followers of this forum that our overarching goal is to preserve these artifacts (meaning all railroad related artifacts) for the next few generations to learn about, enjoy, and understand.
With regard to preservation for future generations, I believe that operational artifacts which they can interact with and perhaps eventually take part in themselves are absolutely necessary.
Without operations, the knowledge and tools to maintain and construct and maintain the artifact are lost. While the knowledge may be preserved in a written sense, no one will maintain the practical knowledge of how to perform certain procedures. Furthermore the significant equipment needed to recreate parts will not be available. I believe this knowledge must be passed down both orally and through experience from generation to generation in order to maintain a proper and complete understanding of historical railroading by future generations.
In addition, I would like to pose two questions to the preservation community concerning preservation and conservation strategies of railway museums:
First, when operating artifacts, why do some establishments choose to operate their artifacts in a manner which does not take into consideration the conservation or preservation of their artifacts? How can the preservation community at large gain recourse to prevent damage to the artifacts whose worth extends beyond their current owner or caretaker?
Second, in the case of both operational and non-operational artifacts shouldn't covered storage be a priority in the prevention of historical fabric? Museums which do not take this into consideration may just be biding time. As an example I would like to cite the many "preserved" artifacts which reside out of doors. While a locomotive may have a fresh coat of paint, or recent maintenance, these do little to combat the effects of prolonged exposure to weather. I believe a noble mission for preservationists would be to cover the most vulnerable pieces of equipment in a collection, with the goal of covering an entire collection in time. Then, the real job of conservation can begin.

Stephen Piwowarski
Berkshire Scenic Railway Museum, Inc.

I know those programs very well, Sandy, as part of my professional life. I also know museum professional associations--I am the Executive Director of a small one, the Visitor Studies Association.

Go to a good museum studies program and they will teach you, right up front, how to write a clause like this into your collections policy:

"Teaching Collection - The Alutiiq Museum maintains a collection of modern objects, artwork, artifact replicas, and artifacts with little or no provenience information for use in presentations by Alutiiq organizations, researchers, and educators. The museum allows these objects to be handled, used in traditional ceremonies, and loaned for educational outreach purposes."

Or of you want a maritime example, the Historic Naval Ships Association will teach you this:

"Often idle equipment frequently deteriorates faster than operating equipment. No system can be assured complete until it has been operated at least once. Many safety problems are found and corrected during the restoration of equipment. Operating equipment inspires respect and care not offered inoperable equipment. Skills are preserved with the artifact with operating equipment. Documentation is collected/created. Endangered resources (knowledge and equipment) are preserved. However, when long term operation is not sustainable or otherwise inappropriate, equipment is brought to operable state and then properly laid up. Operation of equipment also has responsibilities to insure safety, perform preventative maintenance and to avoid inappropriate consumptive use. Equipment can only be operated by qualified crew with approved procedures. "

Or if you insist on a railroad example, there is this excellent statement from OERM:

"6.2 Support Collections (Non-Accessioned Materials)

6.2.1 Utility Collection: These are other objects that are useful in the day-to-day operation of the Museum. These will include the same types of objects found in the Permanent Collection, such as rail vehicles that have been acquired for utility purposes, including demonstration railway operation or for trading with other organizations or individuals for the benefit of the Permanent Collection. The Museum intends to preserve these items as long as feasible, but ultimately they may be expendable. All acquisitions or disposals of rail vehicles into or out of the Utility Collection require the approval of the Board of Directors.

Utility objects are not listed in the Museum’s accession register, but appropriate records should be kept in accordance with accepted business and accounting procedures. A utility object is eligible for later inclusion in the Permanent Collection, but it must be evaluated using the same criteria as for other objects.

Trade or resale of utility equipment may be conducted by the Museum on an occasional basis, but only after careful consideration of the potential for diversion of institutional resources away from the Museum’s other collections The Museum is not in the railway salvage or used equipment business, and will use due care to avoid even the appearance of same. In acquiring collection-related utility equipment from state or federal surplus programs, the Museum will comply with all applicable laws and rules including statutes concerning resale of surplus equipment.

Other objects in the Utility Collection are items that are used for teaching or demonstration purposes. These are generally three-dimensional artifacts and printed matter. These may be similar or identical to items in the Permanent Collection but are obtained or retained for the purpose of being using in place of Permanent Collection objects during educational sessions."

See? It's that easy. Any good museum studies program will teach you RIGHT UP FRONT, in COLLECTIONS MANAGEMENT CLASS, how to write a policy for a use, demonstration, or operating interpretive component to managing your collections.

I'm still looking for that shadowy academic cabal. Not finding it...

Okay, if we're going to throw about exaggerated stereotypes willy-nilly, let's let loose:

"Academic cabal": "Encase everything in plastic sealant!"

"Railfans": "Run the wheels off of everything until the steamer blows up!"

"Museum directors": "Moneymoneymoney showmedamoney...."

"Museum Visitors": "I'm SO BORED! Entertain me with flashy noisy things!"

"Restoration Crew": "How the *%)# can we paint this thing without a paint booth?"

So: How to reconcile?

I personally think this is a great post. Nicely done, sir.

That is correct. We hold railroad museums to a completely different standard.

We operate historic rail equipment because it is practicable to do so. It is solidly constructed so it can bear the frequent use - a property it shares only with large boats. However large boats have crippling maintenance costs, and anyway, with rare exception, I don't see much interpretive value to be gained sailing large boats for the 1-2 hour museum visitor. But it works great for trains.

As someone who can claim to have only been out on the water in working boats--ferries, tugboats, barges, fishing sailcraft, and the preserved steam tug SS Baltimore and Liberty Ship SS John W. Brown--I have to disagree. I will fully acknowledge that the cubic dollars involved with the maintenance and operation of a large boat can make the restoration of a mainline steamer look perfectly sensible by comparison, and that the logistics of "entertaining" folks onboard a craft not expressly built to entertain humans is as daunting, or more so, than the economics of private-railroad-car operation/charter. But ask those who are rallying behind the Delta Queen if there's a difference between her and the modern-day substitutes.

Dang it, now you have me humming Tom Wisner's "Chesapeake Born".........

Showing up in my inbox today:

http://popecenter.org/clarion_call/article.html?id=2437

This essay is an op-ed examination of the costs-versus-benefits of college/university accreditation.

Now, I acknowledge that college/university accreditation and museum accreditation have little in common between them besides the word "accreditation." For one thing, an unaccredited institution of higher learning is considered the exception or aberration; the accredited railroad museum (or, to hear Brother Ledbetter describe it, any such accredited museum) is still a rarity.

Then again, there are parallels. Hopefully, thoughts can be provoked.