With all the talk about 614 and other big steamers without a home I got to thinking about preserved steam in Britain. I may be misinformed, but I seem to remember hearing that they preserved many more engines there relative to the number that once ran, and many more classes of engine. What was it called, the Barry Scrapyard? Where they saved like 200 engines. What did they do, is there more government support, more railfans? Or is it a misconception that the Brits do a better job of steam preservation than Americans?

> With all the talk about 614 and other big
> steamers without a home I got to thinking
> about preserved steam in Britain. I may be
> misinformed, but I seem to remember hearing
> that they preserved many more engines there
> relative to the number that once ran, and
> many more classes of engine. What was it
> called, the Barry Scrapyard? Where they
> saved like 200 engines. What did they do, is
> there more government support, more
> railfans? Or is it a misconception that the
> Brits do a better job of steam preservation
> than Americans?

I am no expert here, but I think the reason they can do so much restoration is they have some sort of government funding, or levy that goes to preserve historical things like Railways, etc. Remember over there, something 200 years old like America is not that ancient. I know someone living in a 400 year old house in England. The point is they have their act together when it comes to preserving, and yes operating steam. There are mainline trips galore over there all the time.


Videos
sales@gregschollvideo.com

> With all the talk about 614 and other big
> steamers without a home I got to thinking
> about preserved steam in Britain. I may be
> misinformed, but I seem to remember hearing
> that they preserved many more engines there
> relative to the number that once ran, and
> many more classes of engine. What was it
> called, the Barry Scrapyard? Where they
> saved like 200 engines. What did they do, is
> there more government support, more
> railfans? Or is it a misconception that the
> Brits do a better job of steam preservation
> than Americans?

No buts about it, they have it all over us Yanks.

First, history: If you count preservation to be centered around steam, steam ended in 1968 in mainline service on BR, which gave British preservationists about an additional 15-20 years to get their act together, relative to us. Then, huge swaths of lightly-used branches were dropped from an admittedly-bloated nationalized rail system beginning around 1962 (the "Beeching axe"), so lots of excess trackage and route-miles became available about the same time.

Another consideration: Britain's 120-some railway companies were merged by Government order into four companies in 1923, and nationalised into one company (British Railways) in 1948. Thus, some degree of standardization (albeit much less than one would expect) was effected over the years, which in the long run does simplify the task of preservationists.

The oft-cited "Barry Miracle" is another factor. In short, a scrapyard in South Wales was filled up with 120 or so steam locomotives at the end of steam, and it's easier to scrap a freight car than a steam locomotive; thus, as the freight wagons kept coming, the steamers were left aside. This evolved into a massive potential pool of steam locomotive projects, museum fodder, and even main line steam! In the end (around 1994), almost every steamer was saved by purchase at a fair scrap price--the equivalent of several Steamtowns worth of locos to be dispersed in a country smaller in square miles than Wyoming.

Go back to that size of the country. In 93,000 square miles with a quarter of the US population, they have well over 500 active preservation projects, ranging in scope from simple station museums to restoration of a double-track main line. There are an estimated half-million rail enthusiasts in the UK, ranging from little kids crossing spotted locos in their spotters' guides to millionaire steam loco owners. At best, the United States, with four times the population has half as many enthusiasts--of which perhaps one in 20 can be considered "card-carrying".

One last sarcastic criticism: Americans, by comparison with Brits, have the historical awareness of tree slugs. Two anecdotes: I was walking on a waterfront in Scotland in 1991, and noticed the ancient stone walls forming part of the harbour. Upon inquiry, I found that parts of the harbour were believed to date from the 1200s or 1300s--with some rebuilding in the 1700s! And this wasn't a history village--work boats were docked there as if at any other marina. Then, a folk trio in a pub in England: "We've received quite a few requests from folks here tonight, who have obviously never heard us or of us before, asking that we do a few songs from the '60s. (pause) Well, we're more than happy to oblige..... the first song will be from the SIXTEEN-sixties......."


lner4472@bcpl.net

> Don't forget "loser pays" tends to keep the British courts a little less likely to be a problem in risk management.

The British as a nation have a lot of ways to preserve things. There are amny govenment programs, there are private programs and there is the Heritage Lottery.

In recebt years, this program has put millions of
L sterling into the hands of preservations. The program works for Culture, much like our Little Theatre groups, Sports, like our Little League and
Preservation. The program has helped Old Buildings of all kinds (including stations), Steam projects both narrow and standard gauge, Ships, small and large and Airplanes, both museums and individual planes. I wish we had something like the programs over here. Yes, they do it better over there!
Ted

ted_miles@NPS.gov

> I am no expert here, but I think the reason
> they can do so much restoration is they have
> some sort of government funding, or levy
> that goes to preserve historical things like
> Railways, etc.

Negative. And I might qualify as an "expert".

The British rail preservationists do not receive any more substantial Governmental help than American projects have. They benefit from non-profit tax-exempt status; so do we (for the most part). They have/had tax loopholes; so do/did we. They have things like subsidies to acquire and preserve route miles or "rail-banking"; so do we. And the nationalised British Rail was no more a boon to rail preservationists than Conrail and Amtrak were--in short, almost none at all.

Lately, the British projects have benefitted from a Heritage Lottery scheme (applying for grant money from the Government and competing with other schemes), which, depending on your point of view, is a valuable project to preserve national history or a "pork-barrel" trough to spend lavish amounts of the taxpayers' monies. Not that much different from, say, the ISTEA or TEA-21 transportation subsidies/"pork".

I belong to several British rail preservation projects, primarily locomotive-owning societies. In as many as 20+ years with some of them, I cannot remember a single direct UK governmental subsidy, grant, award, or other funding directly benefitting our projects. At best, there was some grant for the preserved roundhouse where some of "my" locos wintered a while (Barrow Hill). (This is not to say there haven't been some such grants to other projects; I'm just not up on them.)

In short, British railway preservation owes far more to the sweat, dedication, and ingenuity of far more individuals than American preservation projects, than it does to any U.K. Governmental largess.

lner4472@bcpl.net

Thought I'd reprint a post on this subject I made last year...

> Why are the Brit able to
> raise way more money than we can for
> preservation of railroad history? They do it
> right there.

A good question to which there are a whole grab-bag of subtle, interrelating answers. Things that come to mind include:

1. Until recently Brits were consciously raised to revere the Victorian Engineers. There were children's books on the Lives of the Engineers and schoolkids had Stepheson and Brunel pounded into them. This is no longer quite the case and it may be interesting to see if there's a long-term effect

2. British railways are lighter in nearly every way than US railways--smaller clearance template, lighter, simpler equipment. A big BR standard freight decapod looks like a little Russian teakettle to American eyes. The right of way and rolling stock makes it easier to start small and work upwards. You can get by at every stage with less money.

3. Population density--the preserved operating railways are usually an easy day trip from the great urban centers (Bluebell), or else are located in popular vacation areas (coastal Wales). Contrast with the Cumbres and Toltec or EBT!!

4. ROW in public control at the time of abandonment--made it easier for preservationists to get control than it would have been to buy the ROW from a for profit company as in the States in most cases.

5. General consciousness of heritage--every British town (except horrid Milton Keynes) is a built environment composed of layers on layers of history. Living with, adapting and cherishing old stuff is second nature--none of the American obsession with newer=better

6. Tolerance of eccentricity--the English in particular love their cranks, and railroad cranks are not viewed as at all odd.

7. A less well-developed and modern national industrial base until recently. Britain had no choice but to run its old industrial plant into the ground through the Depression and WWII. One upside was that old skills survived, and some workshops persist to this day which are able to do things like fabricate steam engine frames and fire-tube boilers. The persistance of this kind of capability (combined with the lighter nature of the equipment mentioned above) makes doing some kinds of rebuilds and replicas a little easier. A Lima 4-8-4 was just too modern, and yet too obsolete at the same time, for the industrial base necessary to replicate it to survive! We would find it easier to duplicate a 19C steam engine than a 20C one--witness the Strasburg V&T engine.

On the other hand, we Americans have a few things going for us:

1. Strongest tradition of private charity and volunteerism in the developed world

2. Growing heritage tourist market (though not as well developed as England)

3. Romantic cultural associations (Casey Jones, Orange Blossem Special, She Caught the Katy, Chatanooga Choo Choo, you name it). Has kind of the same effect as the cult of the Victorian engineer in England.



eledbetter@rypn.org

> Negative. And I might qualify as an
> "expert".

> The British rail preservationists do not
> receive any more substantial Governmental
> help than American projects have. They
> benefit from non-profit tax-exempt status;
> so do we (for the most part). They have/had
> tax loopholes; so do/did we. They have
> things like subsidies to acquire and
> preserve route miles or
> "rail-banking"; so do we. And the
> nationalised British Rail was no more a boon
> to rail preservationists than Conrail and
> Amtrak were--in short, almost none at all.

> Lately, the British projects have benefitted
> from a Heritage Lottery scheme (applying for
> grant money from the Government and
> competing with other schemes), which,
> depending on your point of view, is a
> valuable project to preserve national
> history or a "pork-barrel" trough
> to spend lavish amounts of the taxpayers'
> monies. Not that much different from, say,
> the ISTEA or TEA-21 transportation
> subsidies/"pork".

> I belong to several British rail
> preservation projects, primarily
> locomotive-owning societies. In as many as
> 20+ years with some of them, I cannot
> remember a single direct UK governmental
> subsidy, grant, award, or other funding
> directly benefitting our projects. At best,
> there was some grant for the preserved
> roundhouse where some of "my"
> locos wintered a while (Barrow Hill). (This
> is not to say there haven't been some such
> grants to other projects; I'm just not up on
> them.)

> In short, British railway preservation owes
> far more to the sweat, dedication, and
> ingenuity of far more individuals than
> American preservation projects, than it does
> to any U.K. Governmental largess.

I guess I was thinking of the Heritage Lottery, so I stand corrected.
Greg Scholl

Videos
sales@gregschollvideo.com

My wife and I got just got back from a wonderful two week vacation in the U.K. While there is no question that the Brits are way ahead of us in preservation for whatever reasons, two visits left me a bit disappointed.

First, after many years of visiting York on business, I finally made it to the National Railway Museum. It is an incredible collection of well restored equipment, well worth traveling miles to see. But frankly I was a tad disappointed by the lack of meaningful interpretation. It was I guess a typical "Victorian" museum with lots of "interesting stuff". This was in contrast to a visit the prior day to the new Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh where the "interesting stuff" was used to tell a coherent and very educational story.

And a few days later we visited two of the Welsh narrow gauge lines. The equipment was beautiful, obviously lovingly restored and maintained. But like the NRM there were minimal attempts to show why the lines were built and how the operated as goods haulers. In particular, at the Tallyllyn line, there was what appearred to be the remants of the narrow gauge curving around to a transload facility with the standard guage. Most of the old facility seemed to be intact. It cried out for some narrow gauge cars filled with say slate, waiting to be transloaded to some preserved old standard gauge wagons on a relaid siding. Instead it was a rather ragged storage yard.

I hope this doesn't sound too critical, because on balance the various museums have done an incredible job. But there always seems to be something more to do.

> First, after many years of visiting York on
> business, I finally made it to the National
> Railway Museum. It is an incredible
> collection of well restored equipment, well
> worth traveling miles to see. But frankly I
> was a tad disappointed by the lack of
> meaningful interpretation. It was I guess a
> typical "Victorian" museum with
> lots of "interesting stuff". This
> was in contrast to a visit the prior day to
> the new Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh
> where the "interesting stuff" was
> used to tell a coherent and very educational
> story.

Very good point, one well taken by our entire movement. This is one of the reasons (there are others) that RR museums in the US have trouble earning accreditation from the American Association of Museums--even the best of our Museums are too often heavy on the stuff, and weak on the interpretation. CSRM is a good exception to this overall trend, and RRM of Pa is doing a great job with docent activities, themed special events, and rotating exhibits (though overall they too are in the stuff-heavy camp overall).

Steamtown as well does a very good job on the interpretive planning side, in fact, perhaps are the one case where the quality of the interpretation outstrips the time and attention and planning devoted to the "stuff care" itself.

> And a few days later we visited two of the
> Welsh narrow gauge lines. The equipment was
> beautiful, obviously lovingly restored and
> maintained. But like the NRM there were
> minimal attempts to show why the lines were
> built and how the operated as goods haulers.
> In particular, at the Tallyllyn line, there
> was what appearred to be the remants of the
> narrow gauge curving around to a transload
> facility with the standard guage. Most of
> the old facility seemed to be intact. It
> cried out for some narrow gauge cars filled
> with say slate, waiting to be transloaded to
> some preserved old standard gauge wagons on
> a relaid siding. Instead it was a rather
> ragged storage yard.

In the TR's defense, they do have a small Museum of narrow-gauge railroading at the Wharf station, though John's point about interpeting the existing slate transfer platforms is a very good one.

With TR and the similar operation at Ffestiniog, you get into the classic tension between funding ongoing activity as an operating railroad, and funding the interpretive mission. Much of the TR's capital budget goes into improvements which directly impact the passenger experience, like platform and station renovations. Interpretive planning comes in second.

Ideally we would of course have it all: sound, historically-correct living history operations, supplemented by and working hand in glove with top-quality interpretation.

I've never been there, but I hear the National Tramway Museum at Cricch does a good job on both these fronts, with the trolleys running out of a lovely complete Edwardian village street scene a la Mystic Seaport.

> I hope this doesn't sound too critical,
> because on balance the various museums have
> done an incredible job. But there always
> seems to be something more to do.

Indeed: part of the fun of the field is how much we yet have left to do and achieve.


eledbetter@rypn.org

> This is one of the reasons
> (there are others) that RR museums in the US
> have trouble earning accreditation from the
> American Association of Museums--even the
> best of our Museums are too often heavy on
> the stuff, and weak on the interpretation.
>
> Steamtown as well does a very good job on
> the interpretive planning side, in fact,
> perhaps are the one case where the quality
> of the interpretation outstrips the time and
> attention and planning devoted to the
> "stuff care" itself.

I'll agree on the former but respectfully dissent from this view of Steamtown, at least if it is intended to be a blanket statement. What you've written is true of the open-access approach to the roundhouse and the restoration shops, but it does not extend to the exhibits in the museum. Many of the latter are in the "glass-cases-full-of-objects" category with little or no explanation, let alone interpretation. The exhibits convey scant evidence of a coherent theme, as if the designers took their acquisition budget, went to a train show and came home with a trunkful of nice-looking stuff. With no context, the visitor sees but does not understand. Additionally, the topics of the exhibits seem to be scattered, as if the designers could not make up their minds whether to render the facility a DL&W museum or a steam railroading museum or a national railroading museum. On my last visit I saw a Lehigh & Hudson River switch list displayed beside an Amtrak conductor's hat, with no thematic relationship between the two nor any explanation of what either is. That's classic "stuff" emphasis.

With all of that said, however, the visitor-friendly roundhouse is one of the best examples of *practical* interpretation I've seen.


cupper@att.net

Interesting! I responded more favorably to the exhibits in the Technology Museum part of the complex, as did my non-railfan but technically adept wife (she's a chemist).

I know this is a hot-button issue for some folks, but I LOVE J. David's cut-away 0-6-0, and was favorably impressed with some of the other interpretive exhibits (the animated running gear model stuck in my mind, as did the working HO scale Lackawanna roundhouse and yard layout, explaining all the work a steam-era terminal did). I also like their living history program, RAILS.

That said, I'd say Dan's observations are as valid as mine--everything he points out is also true, and is a failing or shortcoming.

I guess in sum I'd rate Steamtown's fixed exhibits "better than most railroad museums" but still not top-drawer compared to best practices of all social history or technology Museums, for all the reasons Dan mentions.

eledbetter@rypn.org

> With all of that said, however, the
> visitor-friendly roundhouse is one of the
> best examples of *practical* interpretation
> I've seen.

With emphasis on the word, practical. Because, IMO, most of today's "display roundhouses" do a terrible job of showing people what the railroad shop man's working environment was really like in the days of steam.

As a general rule, roundhouses were not brightly lit, well-painted, airy, clean and orderly places. The typical roundhouse was dark, dank, smelly, and filthy with little or no heat in the winter (it wouldn't have mattered much with the constant opening of doors to let power in and out), smoke-filled air (from locomotives and from cutting and welding), weird odors, dirt and oil all over the place, no viewing balconies or wheelchair access, no clean concrete aprons, etc. Work was done in cramped, dark quarters using flashlights and torches for illumination; the windows (those above the level that could be easily reached) were usually covered in grime, pits had oil, grease and water in them, as did the floor in numerous places; the noise level could be very high, and the work force was often segeregated, by craft as well as racially and enthnically. And let's not forget the pigeons, mice and other occupants.

Granted, OHSA and other sensibilities along with political correctness prevents much of this from being replicated, but it is ignored at the cost of teaching people what previous generations of railroaders lived with daily. Over the years, the noise, heat/cold, fumes, etc. took a physical and mental toll on the work force, and it's important to show that, too, IMO.

Too many people today equate the term "workplace" with a cubicle or office, and the heavily sanitized, brilliantly lit display roundhouses do our ancestors a disservice and injustice, IMO.

This is one of the interesting challenges for interpretation. In steam days roundhouses and shops were dirty and smelly. That was part of the "environment" that needs to be conveyed, to understand what it was really like to work on steam. The cleaned up shop may be nice in one sense for interpretation, but it also falls short in conveying the reality of what it was like. In a discussion of this with regard to the C&TS, the concept I came up with is the need for an "ant farm". Life and work in the C&TS shop needs to go on in the dirty and reasonably authentic way it always has, while somehow you creat a "window"{ for the visitors, so they can look without getting dirty or killing themselves, and with somekind of explanation of what is going on inside. Not sure this is practical, but it was my way of trying to visualize how you might create an interpretive opportunity without killing the real railroad.

Also there are lots of kinds of interprestation. The cutaway that shows how a steam engine works in a good educational tool. But don't do it in the middle of an exhibit that is trying to convey what life on the railway was like.

> Very good point, one well taken by our
> entire movement. This is one of the reasons
> (there are others) that RR museums in the US
> have trouble earning accreditation from the
> American Association of Museums--even the
> best of our Museums are too often heavy on
> the stuff, and weak on the interpretation.
> CSRM is a good exception to this overall
> trend, and RRM of Pa is doing a great job
> with docent activities, themed special
> events, and rotating exhibits (though
> overall they too are in the stuff-heavy camp
> overall).

Ummmm, guys....... I seem to remember that further down in this Interchange is a discussion about an excellent "interpretive" museum.... one that really put the emphasis in its redesign on the educational and interpretive stuff. Admittedly, they still have a lot of stuff rusting out in the yard, but you probably couldn't have asked for a better interpretive museum, all things considered (including the focus emphasized in its name).

The Railroaders Memorial Museum in Altoona. Seemingly all but self-imploding, far less than the smashing success it should be.

People, face it. Academics may wax eloquent about scholarly concepts on education, interpretation, and the like ad nauseum, but Americans as a whole still are attracted to THINGS (what curators lovingly call "historical artifacts"). Look at the people gawking at the Wright Brothers' Flyer and the Spirit of St. Louis, and still lining up to touch a real slice of moon rock, well over a generation after the race to the Moon has been relegated to the history books. The Smithsonian is less a successful interpretive museum than it is America's attic, and that's its real success.

There are times like this when museums and their academics need a jolt of Madison Avenue and P.T. Barnum shomanship. Both the barnstorming 614/4449/765 and the stodgy museum are critically needed, and the sooner they learn to work off of each other's pluses (a la Strasburg and the RR Museum of Pa.), the better.

LNER4472@bcpl.net