Tying into some thoughts about the next generation with these about museums. We have a challenge to make what we preserve come to life. John Craft's point that these were living industrial items in a for profit industry should give us some guidance. Several of us developed our interest in preserving these items by feeling the real action.

How can we preserve, make it feel real, and involve the new audience? To feel real it must have the magnitude of impression as the original working situation. Liability and the impression that the public does not want to get too involved tend to limit what we try to do.

The theme parks have this down to a science. They immerse an individual in five minutes of action, dust them off and send them on their way. We usually do not have the money to do the same things, so we must think smarter. We must be more creative. And if we are going to get the audience in the future we will probably do some things which upset some of us purists.

Not that I am opinionated..........

Stone Consulting & Design
garylandrio@stoneconsulting.com

In all of the discussion of this subject so far there has been no mention of Cumbres & Toltec Scenic RR. There is a tourist operation that has successfully (in my opinion) melded a tourist operation into a 1920s era experience with an operating railroad. The Friends organization has done an excellent job of preserving the part of the railroad that is not the tourist operation and has done it in an authentic manner. I know of no other operation that places the visitor in an "atmosphere" that suggests what it was like in the steam age.

frankr@ieee.org

A fascinating discussion and I would like to offer my opinion on the original question.
Kurt Bell has provided a good list of what a good museum does, but that is different than what a museum is. This is more than a semantic distinction. Rather it goes to the heart of the matter.

Any 501(c)(3) organization, which is how most museums are established, holds its collection in trust for the public. An organization therefore is, or becomes, a museum to the extent that it understands and operates based on that simple fact.

Use that criterion to examine some of the points raised in this discussion -- mission, what to collect, collections care, rationalization, public education, operation, etc.

One illustration: does a steam locomotive 'belong' in the region of the country where it actually operated or at an institution where it helps fulfill that musuem's public mission and is properly cared for, preserved and interpreted?

I'll be interested to read any responses, and happy to expand, expound or rebut as required.

> In all of the discussion of this subject so
> far there has been no mention of Cumbres
> & Toltec Scenic RR. There is a tourist
> operation that has successfully (in my
> opinion) melded a tourist operation into a
> 1920s era experience with an operating
> railroad. The Friends organization has done
> an excellent job of preserving the part of
> the railroad that is not the tourist
> operation and has done it in an authentic
> manner. I know of no other operation that
> places the visitor in an
> "atmosphere" that suggests what it
> was like in the steam age.

The Friends have done an outstanding job of restoring Sublette, Cumbres, and Osier. And now that they operate the railroad, expect to see even more efforts on interpretation. (Read Erik's report on the Walking Tour brochure in the "Briefs" section/)

Examples: to start small, we're renaming and shuffling the names of the existing coaches. Cars that normally operate on the eastern half of the railroad will be named for the stations they pass through; ditto the west end.Historic photos will be placed inside the coaches (photos from Chama in the "Chama," etc.).

A new work project beginning this summer will focus on conserving the telegraphone booths along the line, and creating some context. Some of the ideas the project leader is considering: putting an actual telegraphone in one booth during the season, and developig a brochure to leave in the booth. About two poles' worth of wire will be restrung to convey the "connection." I'd like to see us (working with Colorado DOT) create a layby on the original road at Coxo crossing, which would be within 100 yards of one booth.

The crown jewels, though, are Osier, Cumbres, and Sublette. The Osier buildings will get "refurnished" for the lunch crowd to see during the layover; the Cumbres section house will probably become a "welcome center" of sorts, with a walking tour and brochure. Sublette, restored on the exterior but not interior, could become a wonderful Wiliamsburg-like experience; get off the train and have a three-hour session with the "section crew," learning about life in the remote mountains.

If you think the aura is there now, just come back in five years when there's livestock in the Osier stock pens and clothes in the washpot at Sublette.

JAC

Cumbres & Toltec Scenic Railroad

Y'all, one of my thoughts for the Association of Railway Museums/Tourist Railroad Association meeting this fall at Spencer is a seminar taking a positive spin on this: What museums need to learn from tourist railroads and what tourist railroads need to learn from musuems.

A couple of points that I havent' seen made here:

1. The C&TS, which I've always considered a scenic railroad, I believe, and John can correct me, has begun to bill itself as a museum. It is truly both. At no other place in America have I ever seen home engines in home environment with most of the landscape and structures untouched by modern man.

2. Some of what we're arguing about is economic as well as ethics. Here's a case in point at my own place of volunteer service, NCTransportation Museum: We have a grant to restore a combine as an ADA car. Such a car is badly needed. At the same time, I can tell you the grant wil not be enough to do what needs to be done to put the car in service. The car has great heritage, it's a SR car. The decision to do this car or go find another one is now pending (if we do find another one, it will NOT be lettered for a railroad for which it did not run, but will be lettered for the museum) and I suspect it will come down to doing the right thing (a SR car) or finding an alternative but with not as good a history or relevance to our area.



http://nctrans.org
Wrinnbo@aol.com

Although I have stated this before in other threads, we are running into this right now at our new Edison museum. In our case, we were the only hope for the GTW combine that we acquired. We weren't looking for a historic car, but it fell into our lap. If we hadn't taken it, it would have been torched; no one else was interested. Period. We HAVE to use part of our combine (rebuilt by the Fort Gratiot Car Shops of C&GT in 1891: original build date is believed to be in 1860's by Osgood Bradley) for interpretative and gift shop space. Much to our shagrin, we found that the side framing on our car was shot: you could poke a hole through one of the main sills. The car last railroad use was in mixed-train service between Grand Haven and Grand Rapids in 1955, and it had sat unloved and uncared for since 1976 at a Marriot complex in Akron, Ohio, where water and dry rot took their toll. We are left with little or no choice to rebuild the sides of the car completely. We looked into complete restoration: and were given the ridiculous price of $450,000 as a CONSERVATIVE estimate to restore the car. We have a budget that can afford about half of that. Most of the car's original components are long gone, but some of the interior wood work in what was the smoking section does exist: we will do our best to preserve that, but we can only preserve this section at most; we are not able to recreate walk-over seats or complete baggage racks, and the easiest restoration will probably be to its 1955 configuration (this car is almost a carbon-copy of EJ&S #2 at Mid-Continent, but in much worse shape).

What angers me is that at times I feel that no-one is pleased about this: I have been hounded by fellow railfans, who link me to the anti-christ for not doing a million dollar ground-up restoration to as built condition (a conservative figure in itself I believe, given the current condition of the car), but yet I am dismissed as a rabid railfan by local businessman who don't want to throw their money into the proverbial "pit". Whether we like it or not, not all of us can preserve cars in their current state as lessons for the future: some of us are forced to deal with the present as well as the past. I feel what we are doing is the best of both worlds: we are preserving as much of the fabric of the car as we can, but yet it also fills a very real need that we have as a museum well. As museums move into the twenty-first century, the money versus preservation issue will
continue to influence decisions like ours; all we can do is try and do the best we can with what we have; in our case, there wasn't another choice.

T.J.

> More along this thread . . . opinions,
> please, on restoration projects that involve
> so much new material that integrity of the
> artifact is lost. For example, restoring a
> steam locomotive to operation, but replacing
> the boiler in the process? At what point
> should a "museum" put a piece of
> equipment "off limits" for
> restoration to service?

> Alan


Port Huron Museum
peremarquette@hotmail.com

My empathies TJ. I recently finished a job on a car that was 50% missing for which I had only a few grainy photos as documentation. I made it clear from the beginning that given the documentation and budget for that job a conjectural rebuilding would be the only practical option, and if that wasn't good enough there wasn't much more to be done about it other than to conserve the car in its existing form.

That was not a politically viable option, and the finished rebuilding, based on the sketchy details we could gather, was accepted by the clients with thanks for bringing in what we promised to do under budget.

The only displeased people were those who had some better information, didn't share it, and then complained about the result - a few relatively minor details of construction.

Point being, you won't ever please everybody so don't sweat it. Please the people who have the power to make their opinions matter with as much integrity as you can insofar as history is concerned, and live with the results which although not perfect, are certainly better than a loss.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> 1. The C&TS, which I've always
> considered a scenic railroad, I believe, and
> John can correct me, has begun to bill
> itself as a museum. It is truly both. At no
> other place in America have I ever seen home
> engines in home environment with most of the
> landscape and structures untouched by modern
> man.

I, too, have always viewed the C&TS as a "train ride." Even though the original locos ran on the original route, everything got painted "C&TS" instead of "D&RGW" and the preservation efforts essentially ran parallel to the operation of the trains. It was if the property had two tenants who didn't coordinate efforts very much - tons of unrealized potential.

That's what's changing. Engines are being lettered properly as they're repainted (the newly-built cars will continue to be lettered "C&TS"), and interpretive experiences will increasingly become an integral part of the visit; the C&TS will no longer be "just a train ride."

It won't happen overnight, but it will happen.

JAC

Cumbres & Toltec Scenic Railroad

Thanks, Dave, I needed that. The toughest part of this job has been leaving the rapid railfan in me on the back burner sometimes. It may not matter to most how historically accurate it is, but it is always different when your a railfan. If a fellow railfan notices that you used a different brace-method in framing a wall than the original builder, YOUR the one who should have known the difference. A hazard of the job I guess. At times I don't think that railfans (or the general public for that matter) realize that within the field, decisions like this are very rarely (although from some comments in this thread, one would wonder) made in a haphazard fashion. In the case of this car, we are trying our best to balance the history with the use that we need it for. In this case, I have to be a curator who happens to be a railfan, not a railfan who happens to be a curator.

I guess I consider it part of my duty to represent railfans as impassioned advocates of preservation, not the raving lunatics that most of the world thinks of us as. In the past twenty years, we have truly become that in many eyes I believe, but I hope that the readers of this thread realize that can change any minute (and almost has in a couple of recent incidents, namely the Gettysburg fiasco). Whether we like it or not, we are still the Rodney Dangerfield of the museum and preservation world: we get no respect. Only by making clear, concise, and yes, economic arguments for our cause can we expect to be taken seriously.
> My empathies TJ. I recently finished a job
> on a car that was 50% missing for which I
> had only a few grainy photos as
> documentation. I made it clear from the
> beginning that given the documentation and
> budget for that job a conjectural rebuilding
> would be the only practical option, and if
> that wasn't good enough there wasn't much
> more to be done about it other than to
> conserve the car in its existing form.

> That was not a politically viable option,
> and the finished rebuilding, based on the
> sketchy details we could gather, was
> accepted by the clients with thanks for
> bringing in what we promised to do under
> budget.

> The only displeased people were those who
> had some better information, didn't share
> it, and then complained about the result - a
> few relatively minor details of
> construction.

> Point being, you won't ever please everybody
> so don't sweat it. Please the people who
> have the power to make their opinions matter
> with as much integrity as you can insofar as
> history is concerned, and live with the
> results which although not perfect, are
> certainly better than a loss.

> Dave


Port Huron Museum
peremarquette@hotmail.com

You are right, Ray, but there are collections and then there are collections.

What might be your most valuable asset to be forever conserved without human touch in a hermetically sealed environment might be my artifact to use up and repace as needed.

Tennessee Valley has a C of G 4-4-0 that would be a very valuable addition to my "forever" collection. They plan to restore it to operating condition and keep it running for movie work.

They are not villains or irresponsible people. They run a fine tourist railroad and a great mechanical facility. We don't share the same POV and neither of us are wrong.

If the engine comes out of their shop as a 90% C of G 4-4-0, I still would be happy to house it for them in the Savannah roundhouse if they find themselves short of space.

Let's face it, most steam locomotives in museums today are a lot like Grandpa's Axe. One new head and 7 new handles but it is still the same old axe. If the new head and replacement handles are much like the originals, or demonstrate technological advances in head and handle design that were adopted by the woodcutter in actual service, does it make it less valuable?

A few years ago, I had occasion to inspect and estimate a job on a wonderful steam locomotive kit for a large railroad museum in the southeast. the parts were an assembly that was substantially rebuilt several times over by the railroad that ran it to the extent that it didn't appear anything like its original configuration. It ran in service for many decades and was still in its 1950's configuration other than being disassembled and somewhat damaged over the years.

Its boiler was a great demonstration of different repairs, patches, and seam styles sand techniques fron the 1880's through the 1940's. If the engine were to be made to run, a new boiler was a necessity. the old boiler could have been used as a display to interpret technological change in boilermaking.

Would this have irreversably harmed the pile of parts? Would leaving the pile intact be a better interpretation? Something in-between?

Consider the 1957 Chevies of the railroading world, E and F units. If I can find a rusty hulk of an Illinois Central E3 and take it from the scrapyard, and replicate the appearance of a C of G E3, claiming nothing more than it is a replica of a C of G E3, and there are no originals around to choose from, have I not provided my visitors with another valuable image of lost days on the railroad we interpret? How different would the originals have been? Would the world have been made a better place if I had let it get cut up?

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> Fine and well, but why not just put 1401 in
> the real Salisbury depot?

I suspect br'er Jim Wrinn would be QUITE happy to accept it . . . ;-)

> If the Smithsonian is comfortable with false
> facades to provide context, maybe the rest
> of us should take another look?

> There aren't many places where a real and
> full picture or experience can be offered.
> CATS should accurately be running many more
> freights in between their passenger trains
> for a complete picture of the D&RG. Lots
> of timber should be shipped through the
> Jamestown mainline of the Sierra behind 28.
> Steamtown should be running 60 MPH to
> Jersey, and connecting with a steam powered
> ferry. Golden Spike NHS has a building
> collection that doesn't even attempt to
> recreate the original visitors facilities
> that were there on May 10, 1869.

> Given the resources all these institutions
> have that the rest of us never will, how do
> we stand a snowballs chance in hades of
> doing a better job of interpretation than
> their efforts?

We'll never completely replicate the past. I wouldn't want the TVRM station at East Chattanooga to feature White and Colored facilities, for example.

But the aura of the time - or, more precisely, demonstrating the things that are gone, that few of the visitors would ever have experienced - is my personal goal. I don't have to interpret racism or poverty - most of us can relate. But not many people can relate to the train pulling up, the conductor bantering with the agent as he signs for a 31 order, the mail truck sitting on the platform, the retirees sitting on wooden "Co-Coler" crates turned on end.

Even if a steam-powered freight isn't in the South siding at Cumbres when the afternoon passenger rolls in, it would still be a powerful, entertaining, and educational experience.

And we may never succeed - but we should damn sure try.

JAC

Cumbres & Toltec Scenic Railroad

I always thought that whatever avenue you take whether preservation or restoration and for what reasons it was valid as long as it was in the scope of your museum and it helped your museum achieve its mission statement and goals. You have to look at what your museum physically can do. What your museum can afford to do. Is your mission to preserve cars? Or do you want to restore cars for demonstration purposes. When doing preservation/restoration there are so many avenues to choose from. Do you want the car to be restored to an as built appearance or represent a period in its service life? There will always be those that say you're not doing it right. But that doesn't just pertain to museums but to everyday life. for the most part we have to just grin and bear it.

Michigan Transit Museum
sutterd@hotmail.com

> You are right, Ray, but there are
> collections and then there are collections.

> What might be your most valuable asset to be
> forever conserved without human touch in a
> hermetically sealed environment might be my
> artifact to use up and repace as needed.

> Tennessee Valley has a C of G 4-4-0 that
> would be a very valuable addition to my
> "forever" collection. They plan to
> restore it to operating condition and keep
> it running for movie work.

> They are not villains or irresponsible
> people. They run a fine tourist railroad and
> a great mechanical facility. We don't share
> the same POV and neither of us are wrong.

> If the engine comes out of their shop as a
> 90% C of G 4-4-0, I still would be happy to
> house it for them in the Savannah roundhouse
> if they find themselves short of space.

> Let's face it, most steam locomotives in
> museums today are a lot like Grandpa's Axe.
> One new head and 7 new handles but it is
> still the same old axe. If the new head and
> replacement handles are much like the
> originals, or demonstrate technological
> advances in head and handle design that were
> adopted by the woodcutter in actual service,
> does it make it less valuable?

> A few years ago, I had occasion to inspect
> and estimate a job on a wonderful steam
> locomotive kit for a large railroad museum
> in the southeast. the parts were an assembly
> that was substantially rebuilt several times
> over by the railroad that ran it to the
> extent that it didn't appear anything like
> its original configuration. It ran in
> service for many decades and was still in
> its 1950's configuration other than being
> disassembled and somewhat damaged over the
> years.

> Its boiler was a great demonstration of
> different repairs, patches, and seam styles
> sand techniques fron the 1880's through the
> 1940's. If the engine were to be made to
> run, a new boiler was a necessity. the old
> boiler could have been used as a display to
> interpret technological change in
> boilermaking.

> Would this have irreversably harmed the pile
> of parts? Would leaving the pile intact be a
> better interpretation? Something in-between?

> Consider the 1957 Chevies of the railroading
> world, E and F units. If I can find a rusty
> hulk of an Illinois Central E3 and take it
> from the scrapyard, and replicate the
> appearance of a C of G E3, claiming nothing
> more than it is a replica of a C of G E3,
> and there are no originals around to choose
> from, have I not provided my visitors with
> another valuable image of lost days on the
> railroad we interpret? How different would
> the originals have been? Would the world
> have been made a better place if I had let
> it get cut up?

Hey, if you can find an Illinois Central E-3, I'll take it off of your hands faster than you can letter it for CofG!
> Dave


Kevinmccabe@avenew.com

> Changing to another subject, Kurt makes a
> critical distinction when he invents the
> third category of "Museums with an
> operating train ride experience." At
> the B&O Museum in Baltimore, artifacts
> and rolling stock are classified into two
> categories: permanent collection and use
> collection. The permanent collection
> includes all objects and stock of lasting
> historical value which should be conserved
> for future generations. They are not used in
> day to day revenue service, though they may
> be moved or operated on an extremely limited
> basis for special occaisions. By contrast
> the use collection is meant to interpret
> railroading by running--it is understood
> that in the process, the collection will be
> consumed.

I think the idea of dividing a collection between artifacts to be conserved and equipment to be maintained for operation is excellent, and I hope over time that other organizations will be able to promote this strategy with their members and volunteers. There are a few pieces out there that are substantially as they were received from the railroads, are not needed for operation (although it would be fun), and which might best serve the interests of history by not being rolled into the shop for rebuilding to operating standards.

Just my opinion.

Alan Maples


AMaples@aol.com

> I am a Curator at a large maritime museum. I think that historical accuracy is a big reason that the maritime museums have come a long way in the past 25 years and why they are starting to see some Big Bucks roll in.

At a minimum, an artifact should show three things that are all in agreeent: The name or as in this case a Railroad and car number.

The physical structure; that is if a major rebuild took place; you should not call it something for which the historic fabric does not exist.

The paint scheme; paint it for the real Railroad and paint colors that it once had.

Here is an example of all of the above. The ferry Ukiah was built in 1890 as a car float with passenger space for the San Francisco and North Pacific Railroad and re-built in 1922 as a passenger ferry for the the Northwestern Pacific RR. All of the wood that you see today, dates from 1922 or later.

Therefore, her name is now Eureka and she is painted the way the Northwestern Pacific did it.

Mostly the glory years of a given artifact are its early period, but not always, as in the above case.

Another example that comes to mind, is a standard gauge engine at the Colorado Railroad Museum. D&RG 583 was recently changed to D&RGW 683 because it was realized that she now has a steel cab and other changes (electric headlight etc) that she got in the 1940s. So it is not correct to use the 1890s number for the engine. The museum still needs to work on the pilot which is still not right.

Yes, indeed historic accuracy is something that a
real museum should be thinking about all the time!

One further comment. I am not much into Diesels; but as long as they are the same model of say E8 I don't mind the recreation of extinct railroad locos. The Anthracite Historical Society (I think) has done some good work in this regard. Unlike steam engines which were more one of a kind, Diesels were more cookie cutter mass produced.
What do others think? TM

ted_miles@NPS.gov