This crossed my path this morning:

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/27/high ... vency.html

"High Speed To Insolvency: Why Liberals Love Trains"

Now, please disregard ANY political debate over the current HSR proposals, or about Amtrak or commuter rail funding. Think long-term, big-picture. It's entirely possible, that given a few more years of current political policy and debate, railroads will have to run ads saying "Railroads: we're not just one big socialist plot...."

Whether we like it or not, politics are being dragged into the big railroad picture, and in fact have been for generations. Years or decades from now, we could well see a day when someone points to Amtrak trains in a museum as relics of a massive failed social experiment. Or when someone shows Penn Central photos and a Conrail locomotive as the start of the eventual nationalization of the nation's rail infrastructure.

Look at any commentary attached to an article on high-speed rail: there are vast hordes of folks badly misinformed or uneducated on the true history of railroads in America's development (convinced that the government built all the railroads in the 19th century, for example).

Without igniting a virulent shouting match in the midst of a museum hall, has any museum been able to properly address, in a reasonably neutral manner, the socio-political aspects of railroad development in an exhibit or two? Or is this either too controversial or complex to handle in such a fashion?

In my area we have Southcoast Rail, originally projected to cost $138 million, and now having grown to a startup cost estimate of $2.2 Billion dollars. A recent newspaper article said that the project has spent $117 million on "studies" alone, that amount would have bought the MBTA about 30 new commuter locomotives.

Once it gets built, if it gets built, it will be the longest run on the MBTA, and require a seven thousand dollar annual per-rider taxpayer subsidy over and above the costs covered by the riders fares. It will take a half hour longer to get to Boston than the existing private bus line, due to many additional station stops added through the insistence of mayors of cities on the route.

Will projects like this contribute to giving railroading a bad name? Maybe. Wait and see.

But then, how many museums present or explain commuter rail operations?

PC

At National Capital, we occasionally screen the 1950's GE promotional film "Going Places" that stresses the fact that our planning (even in 1950) focuses on moving automobiles and not enough on moving people. I cannot say what impact it has on the audience. But the point of the film is still relevant as a teaching tool on the subject of planning and development of public transportation in all forms.

Wesley

OK, I read the article. It is definitely one sided, as the title screamed. Let's hope it never comes to the point where we have no train service because a few select, narrow minded, bought people think we don't need it.

And by the time a lack of rail service ever becomes a topic in a museum, many of us will be long gone. As it stands today, the history of rail is a good topic of conversation in any museum since many museums are of the historical category but the future of rail is still not known so why get into a discussion of it if it only comes back to a discussion of politics? And since there are no political conversations, only political screaming matches, do we want those in our museums?

Later!
Mr. Ed

When I go to volunteer at my tourist railroad or museum, I don't want to talk politics, even railroad-oriented politics. I stay out of internal politics as well. I go to those places to escape the real world for a while.

Amen GW!

Later!
Mr. Ed

Please remember that I am most certainly NOT suggesting that rail museums "talk politics," or act as lobbyists for or against any particular political or social agenda (other than their own survival and that of their artifacts and mission, of course).

I'm simply pointing out that, increasingly, not only are we trying to attract folks whose only experience with railroading is waiting for a train that's blocking the crossing on their way to work, we are also up against folks who apparently think that "the government" runs all the railroads in the U.S. (and this is likely to become even more prevalent an erroneous assumption in the future, IMO), and that politics is inevitably going to creep into the discussion. You could even have a docent or volunteer somewhere on the back lot holding forth on his or her soapbox about the local freight railroads, Amtrak, or the commuter operation (and the guy I heard at Gold Coast RR Museum who routinely referred to the commuter operation down there as "Tri-Fail" should have been disciplined).

I even have heard traction guides quoting Branford Snell as gospel and perpetuating the whole National City Lines "conspiracy" as the reason we don't have trolleys today, making both traction companies and local government look corrupt in the process and ignoring what Paul Harvey would call ".... the REST of the story!"

Is there a museum out there putting together a display on the "history of high-speed rail"?

Railroad history is filled with topics that divide people on political lines. Both sides have valid points to make, but most people place themselves entirely on one side of an argument or the other. Did the California Big Four put themselves at great financial risk to build the Central Pacific? Yes. Were they visionaries? Yes. Did they engage in unscrupulous behavior to create a monopoly and maximize their revenue? Yes. Are they Bad guys or Good guys? Well that depends, and only a zealot would offer a quick response.

It is the responsibility of museums and historians to try and tell truthful accounts of historical fact. That said, every exhibition reflects the views of its creators/curators. Controversial topics will invite controversy, and some people will always find a way to be offended or victimized by views they don't agree with. There is nothing new about this. Look at American museum's efforts to deal with dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The display of the Enola Gay by the Smithsonian led to a firestorm of criticism and accusations of America hating, while the Atomic Museum in Las Vegas identifies both cities as Military targets.

What may be new, is the degree to which some of this outrage seems ginned up by a few to further some political advantage. The people affected by this blather are emotional and refuse to listen to other points of view (or even facts) as they believe that ideas are some sort of mind-melting infection that will turn them into brainwashed zombies, when in fact, they already are.

There may be nothing that can be done about this at the level of the museum, except to try to avoid ending up as the subject of someone's cable news ranting minute of hate by avoiding controversial topics altogether. Just like this discussion board does, of course.

I wish it were not so.

But there is something that CAN be done at museums that costs very little to do and adds greatly to the interest and appeal of the organization, and that is to tell the story of more modern developments in motive power and operations, because they are all "history" as soon as tomorrow arrives.

Many railroad museums seem to be stuck in a rut that was dug forty or more years ago and that is one reason why so many of the people at trackside and currently working on the railroads just are not interested in what they do. The museum's concept of what is "history" often begins further back than a younger person's entire lifetime.

Sometime try presenting some aspect of railroad history that happened in 2010, it is just as much a part of history as what happened in 1947. And it might attract some new members.

PC

It is axiomatic that the old stuff is history, and the less old stuff is not. While the Jasmine revolution may be historic, it is not yet history. It is, in fact, current events.

As far as motive power and operations go, this appeals to the contemporary family how? It would seem you want to build a non-profit educational institution that has as its core constituency: railfans, ages 14-36. A museum can circumvent this by having technology as its focus, but then you're mission is teaching about science and contemporary technology; and honestly, recent railroad equipment may not provide the best artifacts through which to pursue this mission.

The Computer Museum in the Silicon Valley features stuff from the recent past, but here is a field that has grown and evolved at at tremendous speed. The 1990s does look like medieval times when you are looking at an early laptop computer. I think they were made of hand forged bronze back then.



By the way, I waded into this topic against my better judgment. I do that sometimes. There has been way too much politics around here of late. It is a big turn off.

Teaching about science and technology is a worthwhile activity and fits well with the sometimes ignored educational mission at museums. I don't see presenting things that are new and different as being that much of a problem.

PC

As far as motive power and operations go, this appeals to the contemporary family how? It would seem you want to build a non-profit educational institution that has as its core constituency: railfans, ages 14-36. A museum can circumvent this by having technology as its focus, but then you're mission is teaching about science and contemporary technology; and honestly, recent railroad equipment may not provide the best artifacts through which to pursue this mission.

My experience is that I am most sucessful with visitors when I relate the social history of the streetcars. Whether it is the impact of the PCC on public transit, the story of how TTC 4602 made its way from Toronto to Cleveland (Trolleyville) to Maryland, or how the PCC design is still relevant almost 75 years later(!!!) in Europe, it is possible to capture the imagination of the visitor and tell a very relevant story about one of the largest objects in our collection. With a bit of planning and research I believe one could do the same with an SD70 or a bus. Its not so much about the nuts and bolts, but more about why the (insert equipment here) was needed in the first place.

Wesley

This editorial by George Will brings up two themes that have been discussed here in the past. One is what I consider a "generational" effect, and the other can be a corollary to it, in which we are like Rodney Dangerfield of "I don't get no respect!" fame.

For newcomers, the generational effect is that a great many people came of age between about 1950 and the first oil crunch of 1973; their birth dates would run from about the late 1920s to about 1953 (Depression Babies, War Babies, and the first part of the Baby Boomers), and their current ages run from about 60 or so to about 90 (Will is about 70). Cars were the future for the very great majority of this crowd,, and trains were from the horse and buggy era. And while there is some controversy in regard to the National City Lines case (which was very loosely adapted as a subplot for "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," and detractors refer to it as that), there is no doubt that there was oil and auto industry influence in the roads promotion business--and of course, this same age group was very happy with that at the time.

This group sees the idea of bringing back trains as being part of a plot to take away their cars. This is real; I've personally been accused of this and of being a Communist besides when I tried to promote a light rail line in my area, much like a modern interurban, as an alternative to a four lane highway. At that time, this same crowd was between 40 and 70; the others in the debate then, at that time under 40 and over 70, did not have this antipathy. The older crowd is now about gone, but the crowds on commuter trains and a subway I ride are getting younger all the time. This has been observed by by others promoting rail, including high speed rail, and I was told by an Amtrak marketing man that that agency had measured this as well (he and I were members of the same civic organization for a while).

I also believe this to be a factor in our Rodney Dangerfield standing. As an example, consider that Civil War re-enactors aren't normally considered people "playing soldier," even if that is in effect what they do. I don't think anybody thinks old car fans are kooks, either. In contrast, we are often considered people who never outgrew our Lionel trains. Go check the comments sections on high-speed rail articles, or the comments by the snowmobile crowd that followed the recent newspaper stories on the Adirondack Railroad that were posted here, or the opposition to revived electric freight and heritage trolley service for Notre Dame in South Bend if you need to see examples.

I've brought this up before, but in his book, "The American Railroad Freight Car," John White mentions that when he was some fundraising function at the Smithsonian, he told some matron of the arts that he wasn't with an art museum, but with the Museum of History and Technology, and had just finished the above mentioned manuscript. Her reaction was, "They don't really make you do [things like] that, do they?"

We get no respect, no respect at all!

This is how it stands; it is what it is.

If it's worth anything, some of this is understandable. There have been comments here about the loss of our industrial base and the perceived reasons for it (some accurate, perhaps others less so), and the pain that has accompanied this. A coworker recently said to me that people are afraid of changes "because they have seen too many wrong changes."

How do we overcome this? Time is certainly a help in this case as we do seem to have a younger crowd interested in railroad history and modern rail transit (think of fellows like PRR Forever and Big Bad 2-6-6-6), but it is also an enemy as the memory of what used to be before the Interstate era fades even faster than the memory of the "Happy Motoring" era.

I flopped at my attempts to borrow from the past to improve the future, so I'm afraid I'm not of much help here--but others have in the past been more successful, Ross Rowland coming immediately to mind despite some differences in opinion of him.

Does anybody else have success stories to tell in gaining support, or perhaps alternative suggestions that might work in this arena of public opinion?

Many museums are out of room. Trying to incorperate more modern equipment might mean something else has to leave.
Another thing is that most railroad museums equipment is cast off from the operating, railroads.so unless someone has the money to buy the latest & greatest, most railroad museums will have older technology equipment . Just makes sense to me.

DBH

Okay, seriously?

You ignore that target market at your own (potentially fatal) peril.

Have you SEEN the average age of the typical NRHS meeting, model RR club meeting, or museum board meeting? In an AWFUL lot of such clubs/organizations with which I am intimately familiar (an not just with flanged wheels, either), the average age is "between 65 and Death". I'm even seeing beer clubs--BEER CLUBS--where the "old guard" is being ignored or passed by, in favor of online-only "clubs" scattered across the face of the map.

Look at TrainOrders.com. Railroad.net. Trains.com. And even RyPN.org. More traffic than NRHS.com or the like.

At National Train Day in D.C. last year, the most popular exhibits were the newest-fangled things--the battery hybrids, the MP36's, etc. F40PH's are in the same "museum piece" category as the Space Shuttle, for the exact same reason.

The cliche stereotype of museums are as monuments to dead white men. If you really want to be increasingly irrelevant, continue to do the same ol' same-old.

The alternative is a no-brainer: Offer, by any means possible, the alternative for ALL people (young and old) to see the modern-day. Invite BNSF, NS, CSX, UP, Amtrak, the commuter agency, etc. to have a part in your next big weekend. Let the AAR, etc. show that railroading didn't stop in 1960 or with Amtrak. Let the short line show that they do something besides shove museum pieces into your interchange or run 40-year-old locos.

In short, let the fans see that they are shooting, watching, and living what you hope to be preserving 50 years from now. Otherwise, why in hell should they care about you?