The many various threads below posted during the past week--some of the most important to appear her in this forum--highlight what I believe has become a major schism between two camps of railroad historians: The academic elite versus the "hands-on" people aiming at restoration and operation.

I know many of the "academics" in the field--some on a first-name basis, and if you see yourselves in a few sentences that follow, no insults are intended. It's my opinion that many are failing to see the trees for the forest, and indeed, though their actual intentions are quite honorable, in the long run they can have the effect of "preserving" something directly into obscurity or oblivion. Certainly, original artifacts are necessary for long-term preservation; but if the net result is to entomb everything in amber, no one will give a fig.

I recently sat in with a meeting of a historical library committee. they were looking at two problems coming up: more donations being made to them as older collectors retire (and before they die, so sense is the order of the day, thankfully); and more people wanting to use the library's assets (photos, research materials, etc.) for for-profit use (such as books and architectural research), and thus what to charge, if anything.

We presented the committee with fee schedules from other institutions in their field. The fees were in line with what one would expect from a state archives or state historical society with a paid staff, or an archive at, say, the RR Museum of Pa., California State RR Museum, etc.

The committee of the (all-volunteer) library was aghast, not delighted. I made the valid pitch that they (museums and library) had to cover their expenses (the library had just received new computers, would have to order new shelving, thousands of photo sleeves, etc.).

The reply was biting, sarcastic, and indeed personal on many levels. But what it boiled down to was this: They were running a library where anyone could come in and make excellent use of the resources at hand. They were not about preserving hundreds of thousands of pages in perpetuity. As one member said, "A high-school or college kid couldn't even afford to step in through the doorway of those places. We're about making these books, photos and whatnot available, not keeping them safe from others' hands."

They decided further study would be necessary, but for the time being they're sticking with the donation kettle by the door. I should note that, as word of the library collection has spread, its usage has skyrocketed, and it's getting claustrophobic during its open days. In addition, several people with worthwhile collections have reportedly changed their wills or minds about where to donate their collections, on the basis of such "accessibility".

The brand of "professionalism" espoused by some below has often gone too far. The case could be made that the best preservation of all would be to soak something in preservative and bury it ten feet deep. If the brand of preservation espoused by "professionals" with a bunch of letters behind their name were widely practiced, no one would be permitted to touch the Liberty Bell, climb the Statue of Liberty or Washington Monument, or visit the Grand Canyon. To care about something, we have to experience it and live it--that means seeing waves crash onto the National Seashore, living the Constitution by whatever means the individual chooses to pursue, and, yes, occasionally operating a steam locomotive or vintage train. Think I'm wrong? Go look at East Broad Top. Fifty years after its reasons to exist ceased to be, we still care.

lner4472@bcpl.net

> The many various threads below posted during
> the past week--some of the most important to
> appear her in this forum--highlight what I
> believe has become a major schism between
> two camps of railroad historians: The
> academic elite versus the
> "hands-on" people aiming at
> restoration and operation.

> I know many of the "academics" in
> the field--some on a first-name basis, and
> if you see yourselves in a few sentences
> that follow, no insults are intended. It's
> my opinion that many are failing to see the
> trees for the forest, and indeed, though
> their actual intentions are quite honorable,
> in the long run they can have the effect of
> "preserving" something directly
> into obscurity or oblivion. Certainly,
> original artifacts are necessary for
> long-term preservation; but if the net
> result is to entomb everything in amber, no
> one will give a fig.

> I recently sat in with a meeting of a
> historical library committee. they were
> looking at two problems coming up: more
> donations being made to them as older
> collectors retire (and before they die, so
> sense is the order of the day, thankfully);
> and more people wanting to use the library's
> assets (photos, research materials, etc.)
> for for-profit use (such as books and
> architectural research), and thus what to
> charge, if anything.

> We presented the committee with fee
> schedules from other institutions in their
> field. The fees were in line with what one
> would expect from a state archives or state
> historical society with a paid staff, or an
> archive at, say, the RR Museum of Pa.,
> California State RR Museum, etc.

> The committee of the (all-volunteer) library
> was aghast, not delighted. I made the valid
> pitch that they (museums and library) had to
> cover their expenses (the library had just
> received new computers, would have to order
> new shelving, thousands of photo sleeves,
> etc.).

> The reply was biting, sarcastic, and indeed
> personal on many levels. But what it boiled
> down to was this: They were running a
> library where anyone could come in and make
> excellent use of the resources at hand. They
> were not about preserving hundreds of
> thousands of pages in perpetuity. As one
> member said, "A high-school or college
> kid couldn't even afford to step in through
> the doorway of those places. We're about
> making these books, photos and whatnot
> available, not keeping them safe from
> others' hands."

> They decided further study would be
> necessary, but for the time being they're
> sticking with the donation kettle by the
> door. I should note that, as word of the
> library collection has spread, its usage has
> skyrocketed, and it's getting claustrophobic
> during its open days. In addition, several
> people with worthwhile collections have
> reportedly changed their wills or minds
> about where to donate their collections, on
> the basis of such "accessibility".

> The brand of "professionalism"
> espoused by some below has often gone too
> far. The case could be made that the best
> preservation of all would be to soak
> something in preservative and bury it ten
> feet deep. If the brand of preservation
> espoused by "professionals" with a
> bunch of letters behind their name were
> widely practiced, no one would be permitted
> to touch the Liberty Bell, climb the Statue
> of Liberty or Washington Monument, or visit
> the Grand Canyon. To care about something,
> we have to experience it and live it--that
> means seeing waves crash onto the National
> Seashore, living the Constitution by
> whatever means the individual chooses to
> pursue, and, yes, occasionally operating a
> steam locomotive or vintage train. Think I'm
> wrong? Go look at East Broad Top. Fifty
> years after its reasons to exist ceased to
> be, we still care.

Atta boy, Sandy. Give 'em hell. I'll take a single grubby, living, breathing, fire-snorting 2-8-0 over a whole roundhouse full of pristine, restored, preserved *cold*locomotives any day. Just watch which one folks will go gawk at!

K4s1361@hotmail.com

I'm reminded of a serious historian friend who did a shortline railroad history for his master's thesis. His first reader was a history professor who thought it was a fine manuscript...indeed it was later published. His second reader was a professor from another discipline who's opening comment was "I now know far more about the XYZ railroad than I ever wanted to."

Different strokes for different folks.

jbwest@att.net

I know a lot of railroad museums, some of which have excellent archives. What I've never heard of is a railroad museum which is archive only.

> Atta boy, Sandy. Give 'em hell. I'll take a
> single grubby, living, breathing,
> fire-snorting 2-8-0 over a whole roundhouse
> full of pristine, restored, preserved
> *cold*locomotives any day. Just watch which
> one folks will go gawk at!

I've read the various threads about whether rail exhibits should be recycled (restored) or "left as is" (in the interest of historical accuracy) with great interest. I wonder if there isn't a THIRD option? Let me give you an example. Let's take the "Lost Engines of Roanoke" for instance. We'll have to assume that the engines will be available for preservation (a big assumption but bear with me for a few moments.)

First of all, we have three (3) N&W class M2 4-8-0 Twelve-Wheelers. These are the only examples of this particular class left in existance (the other surviving N&W 4-8-0's are M class engines and are quite a bit different from the M2's.) IF they become available for preservation, what should be done with them? In my opinion, it would make sense to try and use the three engines to make one OPERABLE locomotive. Of the other two, one could be COSMETICALLY restored and the third left "AS IS". The three engines could end up in the same museum, in two museums or in three separate museums.

But what about the W2 class 2-8-0? Here the decision is harder. Number 917 is the ONLY example of this class of N&W Consolidation (again, the other surviving N&W 2-8-0's are unsimilar class G machines.) Should the 917 be restored to operation? I would say no. But she COULD be made to APPEAR to be operable. How about mounting her in a building as a display in front of a depot (painted as a backdrop or as a "false front" building.) The train order board glows red, the reason the engine has stopped at the depot. A "plain" boxcar mounted on the track siding in front of her just behind the cab, hides the fact that her tender is missing. Hidden pipes run a small amount of "steam" to her visible cylinder, her dynamo, her air pump. She APPEARS alive! Her headlight shines through the darkness because its dusk and thunder rumbles in the distance, growing louder with each clap as a summer storm grows closer. And then, the cab is momentarily lit with an orange glow as the fireman checks the fire in the firebox. The visitors are kept back by a "ravine" and "fence" that run in front of the scene. And then, a final clap of thunder and it starts to rain lightly. At the urging of a guide or voice on a loudspeaker, visitors quickly exit left to the safety of "the freighthouse" where they encounter a photo exhibit of the engine and the Norfolk & Western. But before they can really start to look at the photos, a whistle is heard and then the sound of a locomotive starting and through the frosted windows of the room, the headlight is seen going past the first window, then the second and finally, the third. And then the "917" and train can be heard until they disappear into the distance. One visitor tries to go back to see if the engine really DID leave only to find the few gentle drops of "rain" have now become a deluge just past the freighthouse door (if brave enough to go through the downpour, the visitor would find the 917 still in its place.)

In this scenario, the 917 (or other engine) is kept basically "as is" with necessary missing items (headlight, siderods, etc.) being added as is necessary to complete "the scene." Those who want the engine preserved "as is" are satisfied and yet the engine still tells visitors what the steam experience is like. It represents an alternate to the unsatisfying "stuffed and mounted" option.

Just a thought.

Les Beckman (HVRM)

midlandblb@cs.com

>I think people are missing a very important point. The resources for restoring a loco to operation are limited! Is it better to restore one loco to operation or to preserve five? Also many loco's are not candidates for operation due to their advanced deterioration. There is a happy medium. Not everything needs to be operational and there is nothing wrong with operating old equipment. I belive that some rare "basket cases"
are good candidates for operation because so much of the "original fabric" has been lost. In closing there is no right or wrong, some things should be operated and some displayed. The best RR museum I've been to only had a caboose. They have since acquired a display loco.
M.Nix

2rivers@upstel.net

There are many dimensions to history, and many ways of preserving and interpreting history. The concepts being discussed here have a continuum of answers, not just operating hardware, preserved hardware, and archives. And equally important, for some people running or chasing steam engines has little to do with history and everything to do with just good fun.

I'm a railfan, and chasing steam engines for me is simply fun. I'm also a retired railroader, and appreciate the fact that places like the C&TS preserve a railroad "environment" that goes beyond just the steam engines. I also read history, and it helps that there are archives to support the work of people like Ambrose and Bain.

I purposely mention Ambrose and Bain because their two books are good examples of differing approaches. Ambrose's history of building the UP/CP has notorious flaws but is essentially good history, and it is an easy read. Bain's book is "serious" history, but it is a slow and painful read. Both fill important niches, but if the goal is to communicate the lessons of history to as many folks as possible, Ambrose wins hands down.

Similarly, some museums may be imperfect history, but they have a role to play in getting the word out.

If there were a paucity of railroad artifacts to be preserved, perhaps we would have more to worry about. But there seem to be plenty to go around.

Yes, there are probably a few specific, unique examples where preservation versus restoration versus operation need debate. But the discussion should be specific, and not generally critical of those who chose to follow different paths.

We are fortunate to have such a diversity of approaches to enjoy and learn from.



jbwest@att.net

> His second reader was a professor from
> another discipline who's opening comment was
> "I now know far more about the XYZ
> railroad than I ever wanted to."

The same thing could be said of many of our wives!


kevingillespie@usa.net

> I know a lot of railroad museums, some of
> which have excellent archives. What I've
> never heard of is a railroad museum which is
> archive only.

Did I say it was a railroad museum?

The unusual circumstance of this library is that it's run by a consortium of separate historical societies in the facility of one of them--a similar situation to the Maryland Rail Heritage Library at the Baltimore Streetcar Museum, which houses both the streetcar collections of the BSM and the railroad collections of the Baltimore Chapter NRHS.

Many of the same problems mentioned above also apply to the MRHL; for example, they are torn between charging fees (as they really should) and the sticker shock of the fees charged by nearby archives like the Maryland Historical Society (which charges non-members $4 just to walk into the door!). And they are reviewing the policy of housing two of everything (in case the facilities separate--but the streetcar museum hardly needs a copy of a steam locomotive manual!), and selling surplus versus donating it to or trading with other libraries (public or other NRHS?).

Having worked in this field at a semi-professional level on a volunteer basis for some time, I can say that I still don't envy the academics whose income depends on making unpopular decisions (sometimes on the basis of assuring they have a job in the future as well--the old "conflict of interest" bugaboo). But at the same time, if they do it improperly, it's like the idiots that accumulate the largest wine cellar in captivity, yet never actually drink any of the wine. It may protect the "value" of the product (in reality it doesn't), but it's totally opposite the whole point of making wine in the first place!


lner4472@bcpl.net