> K.R. Bell
I don't want to seem like a smart*** but to me there are a lot of "museum" opinions out there. One famous example I will cite is way off topic but close to my heart and that is the Sistine Chapel. The purists claim vandalism while the avant garde claim we are finally seeing what the artist wanted us to see. The second case I cite is "Old Ironsides". No longer able to acquire the original material (nobody thought to plant live oak after the previous restoration) builtup sections were used to keep the structure intact and the ship is still with us. I think you can tell which side of the fence I am on.

On the subject of railway equipment preservation I encourage thinking towards a complicated piece of equipment that is not meant to be static for any length of time. Bearings deteriorate, seals and gaskets go bad etc. Atmospheric control is necessary to prevent oxidation. Under the most careful conditions modern materials have a definite shelf life and this must be considered. Brass and bronze materials exhibit grain boundary corrosion and can literally fall apart. I have no arguement with the conservation of equipment that will never operate again, and lets face it in 500 years all of the stuff we are operating will fall into that catagory, but IMHO there cannot be a proper display of what a railroad is or was without large heavy objects in motion and the attendant smoke, steam, hot oil, ozone or whatever ...talking or videos just "don't do it".

lamontdc@adelphia.net

> Hey I'm no mettalurgist so what the heck is

" grain boundary corrosion"

Contact me off line if it doesn't lend itself to an explanation.

However, if I understand you correctly-you are saying everything degrades in time-even if its in operative.

Perhaps something like this condition even means that operating can prevent greater damage since bearings would be regularly replaced.


Superheater@beer.com

No, they don't raise good points!
Several of the contributers to this argument (as to the one I started last December) refuse to admit to the historical destructiveness of repairing or replacing parts to keep a machine operating. To suggest that corrosion or the bugs that decay wood degrade an object faster than large-scale replacement of parts is mere foolishness. We cannot even discuss what is "original" until we have some principled agreement on what conservation means. The operations people have to admit to themselves that they wish to enjoy the dramatics of large machines at the expense of protecting the objects for the future.

The AAM Code of Ethics would regard most "restorations" to operation with horror. Except for antique automobile people, the inclusion of an object in a museum means leaving it alone. Maybe removing a little dirt. But the whole purpose is to preserve what of the object remains or is valuable for those coming along behind us. This is what conservation and stewardship means.

Erik reminded us of the thread on "accurate restoration" from last summer. This is a dangerous concept since it is so often used to justify wholesale alteration of an object to make it resemble its condition when new. Pure nonsense in every case. The objects would not have value to a cultural institution (museum) if they had not had some value to the culture and some use. In the case of railroads usually hard use.

So what is "original?" The word is very properly used, but we must have a useful definition. The definition is, "whatever comes through the door of the museum is original." The entry of an object into preservation is the great watershed.

Dan Markoff has probably done as well as anyone could in producing a "restored" 1870's 4-4-0. The machine in question had been reworked many times so that much of its historic fabric was gone. But note well that nearly everything we see on her is Dan Markoff, not Baldwin Locomotive Works or her various owners. Mr Markoff has built a dinosaur replica on the bones of a real dinosaur. But will the genuine bones now be in danger?

The sad case of the "General" is an obvious example. In Rob Davis's words the L&N did "eat up the artifact" to produce an operating machine. This is not a complicated concept.

Dave Lathrop reminded us of the Promontory replicas and of the people who should be flocking to see them (its about the length of England to the next nearest place, any place). If one must have a "factory original" of a machine, obviously a replica is the only way to make one. Some of the 1890 steam locomotives in Dave Conrad's list can properly be used to provide bones for the dinosaur recreation.

So we come full circle as to what is valuable and should be put in a glass case, and what is not. I like the idea of an interpretive museum; further of an interactive interpretive museum. I don't think the boundary between a "living history musem" and a "long term conservation and interpretation" museum is all that distinct.

The US is large enough that railroad museums must have a regional flavor. Thus railroad vehicles protected by these museums must consider
antiquity,
integrity - or completeness - of a machine,
the relation of the machine to the local culture,
and, I suppose, the position of the machine in a
particular railroad company.

Dave Lathrop has written to me about Southeastern RR Musem's "Old Maude," which "seems to have started life as a 1870's 4-6-0, became an 0-6-0, then an 0-4-4 Forney." Surely this machine (?) merits strict preservation just for the wonder of its story.

Strict conservation would - in terms of steam locomotives - eat up a fair percentage of the 1890. Say 15-20%. That's not enough, people, for all of this yelling against preserving valuable objects for the future.

Proposing, in the 21st century, 60mph operation of locomotives 60 years old is an idea whose time is long gone. But the fascination, and pure drama, of steam operation can be produced on a smaller scale. Where, of course, both preservation and the public are safe. In other words your average tourist railroad.

Someone - us most likely - must commit to deciding what the "really valuable" railroad artifacts are. This involves thinking. "Vive la difference" doesn't protect what we cannot, repeat cannot, replace. I want my grand nephews to see the real machines I have seen, and those I just missed. Not Disneyland replicas and not computer simulations. There may even be some moral lessons illustrated by objects from our checkered past.

No, I really don't mean to offend anyone, as if you were to read the profile, you would find out that I am a fellow egghead. I just hate it when people just default to the "you just don't understand museum ethics" as a default argument. I don't mean to call Mr. Bell any names, nor do I think he takes any offense. I think we can agree to disagree. However, I do think that his opinion is a unique one, created by the unique position of th RRMPA. If Strassburg wasn't across the street, I think that Mr. Bell would have a somewhat different view. He would probably go after the more limited operational approach adopted by the B&O Museum and CSRM at Railtown 1897 and Sacramento. Either way, I respect Mr. Bell and his museum. I visited last about 7 years ago and was impressed, even if the locomotives were all cold. More thoughts to come.

david.wilkins@bardstown.com

David,

It's good to agree to disagree. And yes, if the SRR was not adjacent to the RR Museum I'll admit that it probably would be a different situation. Of course, if that were the case we would be running duplicate locomotive with consumable "for use" (a.k.a. teaching collection) cars. But I'll stop for now.

Incidentally an earlier post from "paul" said that the RR Museum was dull. Evidently the 160,000+ visitors who pass through the doors each year (many of whom are repeat customers) don't think so. Our facility is the #1 revenue producer for the museum system operated by the state of PA. A survey done a few years back indicated that less than 2% of our visitors are railfans.

K.R. Bell

> No, I really don't mean to offend anyone, as
> if you were to read the profile, you would
> find out that I am a fellow egghead. I just
> hate it when people just default to the
> "you just don't understand museum
> ethics" as a default argument. I don't
> mean to call Mr. Bell any names, nor do I
> think he takes any offense. I think we can
> agree to disagree. However, I do think that
> his opinion is a unique one, created by the
> unique position of th RRMPA. If Strassburg
> wasn't across the street, I think that Mr.
> Bell would have a somewhat different view.
> He would probably go after the more limited
> operational approach adopted by the B&O
> Museum and CSRM at Railtown 1897 and
> Sacramento. Either way, I respect Mr. Bell
> and his museum. I visited last about 7 years
> ago and was impressed, even if the
> locomotives were all cold. More thoughts to
> come.

John,

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one as well. The two of us have tangled on this before. I do still think that your position is totally impossible though. The National Air and Space Museum even replaces parts on their restorations (appropriately marked though). The "Eureka" was just a hulk when it was bought by its present owner. Are you saying that he should have left it in its deteoriated state with warped tender tank, missing many parts? We don't live in a perfect world where steam locomotives, or other large artifacts were imediately preserved in their "in service" condition and maintained as such. With this, we must strike a balance, and make some compromises. For example, Colonial Williamsburg does this. They have a museum that conserves and preserves historical artifacts, but they also restore, and even (gasp) recreate. Anyway, it is a fun argument, and I don't think we are going to have any conversions.

david.wilkins@bardstown.com

Check out the above 'siding' posts


pvanmeter@msn.com

And....so not even half of the Strasburg clients make it into the museum? It must at least appear to be dull!

pvanmeter@msn.com

I don't think it has anything to do with being "dull" actually. Having worked for many years in the travel industry I can assure you it's just tourism demographics; not everyone who visits the Strasburg area is a museum goer, nor do people has gobs of money to visit and do eveything there is to do. Families are on a tight budget and must choose whether to do something or not. Time is also a factor. So I would not be so hasty as to assume that visitation is impacted on an assumption that the museum is dull.

> And....so not even half of the Strasburg
> clients make it into the museum? It must at
> least appear to be dull!

My wife is one of those who finds railroad museums deadly boring. It isn't her cup of tea and she won't pretend otherwise. She'd much rather go to one of the many natural history museums, or (gack) a geneology library. If it wasn't for the kids I wouldn't even get to ride the trains once in a while.

On the same note; If you can't climb on it, ride in it, or otherwise monkey with it, most little kids don't care HOW historically important or rare it is. After about 20 minutes of looking at "choo choos" that don't DO anything, they are more than ready to go elsewhere.

The gasoline powered travesty at the zoo, or a nowhewhere near prototypical Lionel set going in circles attached to a tacky gift shop is much better (in their opinion) than a whole room full of perfectly preserved examples of our industrial heritage. THAT is just simply a fact of life.

What IS the solution? I don't know, Those expensive interactive exhibits like the ones in Altoona are a start of sorts, but to bring the hobby/industry more into the mainstream conscienceness would take a major rethinking.

> On the same note; If you can't climb on it,
> ride in it, or otherwise monkey with it,
> most little kids don't care HOW historically
> important or rare it is. After about 20
> minutes of looking at "choo choos"
> that don't DO anything, they are more than
> ready to go elsewhere.

That's an interesting question--to go back to Air and Space where I used to volunteer--well, nothing does anything, but it's the most visited museum in the world. Yes, its the Smithsonian and has location, location, location, but in general it suggests that a static museum can move the public.

I think it's imagination. Even if the train doesn't move, you need to provide cab access to some engines, cars to walk through (preferably a caboose--kids love a caboose), interactive displays as your budget and maitenance can support them, and docent-led hands-on activities for the little ones, like trying on railroad gloves, pounding on a telegraph key, or learning hand signals.


eledbetter@rypn.org

The big diff IMO on the air & space museum is that the space shuttle, Star Trek, Star Wars, jet planes, warplanes and all that are still in the mainstream media in one form or another on a near daily basis. A taxicab and bus museum would have something up on a RR museum in this respect (though where they would get volunteers, I don't know).

As I understand, even good old Thomas has been off the airwaves for some time now. And somehow I just can't see a sitcom built around a dispatcher, or a drama about a RR dick.

> That's an interesting question--to go back
> to Air and Space where I used to
> volunteer--well, nothing does anything, but
> it's the most visited museum in the world.
> Yes, its the Smithsonian and has location,
> location, location, but in general it
> suggests that a static museum can move the
> public.

> I think it's imagination...

Imagination and, in my experience, a personal connection. The most fantastic exhibit IÂ’ve EVER seen is John GlennÂ’s Mercury capsule "Friendship 7" at the National Air and Space Museum. Why do I put it at the top of my list?
1. The personal connection, having watched the mission on TV as a youngster;
2. It’s historical significance – it went to outer space!
3. The sheer guts it must have taken to climb into it atop a rocket, because it reminds me mostly of an oversized soup can.

ItÂ’s improbable that one could match that type of connection & experience between railway exhibits, artifacts, or even operations and youngsters of today. So, in my opinion, ErikÂ’s suggestion that imagination plays a large roll is spot on.


Nevada Northern & Railroads of White Pine County
kalbrandt@rypn.org

> Imagination and, in my experience, a
> personal connection. The most fantastic
> exhibit IÂ’ve EVER seen is John GlennÂ’s
> Mercury capsule "Friendship 7" at
> the National Air and Space Museum. Why do I
> put it at the top of my list?
> 1. The personal connection, having watched
> the mission on TV as a youngster;
> 2. It’s historical significance – it went to
> outer space!
> 3. The sheer guts it must have taken to
> climb into it atop a rocket, because it
> reminds me mostly of an oversized soup can.

Keith, one of my fondest memories is from February 20, 1981. It was a Saturday morning and I was shooting the breeze in the main hall with the other docents before the Museum opened to the public. In walked John Glenn. It was the 20th anniversary of his flight and he had come by that morning to have a few minutes in private with Friendship 7. After he had reflected for a while he came over for a quick word with us, and I got his autograph, which I still have. Nice moment--nice man, at least during that one quick interaction.

eledbetter@rypn.org