I am fascinated with the techniques film makers use to create period scenes. Some of these are applicable to what we do at railroad museums, but making a movie is a very different enterprise from representing history in a museum setting. They are both about conveying stories, but "history" depends upon on facts and details to construct an account, while movies use archetypal narratives and emotion. Both mediums usually sacrifice a bit of one for the sake of the other. Too much attention to accuracy and exposition can wreck the flow of a movie by interrupting the pace, and distracting from the central story. Movies are best when they show things instead of talking about them.

Films makers strive for efficiency. 90 minutes is actually a pretty short period of time in which to convey a complicated story, and every scene is expected to contribute to constructing the world of the movie and advance the storytelling. Film makers usually want to evoke a complete world with a minimum of iconic images. In "period" films, these shots are usually expensive to make, and too many of them can distract from the story. Director's depend upon the imagination of the audience to extrapolate an establishing shot of one block into an entire city.

Sets are designed to create an environment that is visually subservient to the action. It is worth noting that movie sets are designed by people who know where the camera is going to be. They use flats, lighting, colors, effects, forced perspective, and other tricks to create illusions for the camera. If the camera is not going to see it, it may as well not exist.

Railroad museums have endeavored to create similar settings, especially those that are not located at a historic site. Some of these museums feature urban transit vehicles but are located in rural or suburban locales. A lot of the experience of visiting a railroad museum is visual, and this is too often neglected at our museums. Walt Disney (a film maker) understood something about creating immersive visual environments when he created Disneyland.

Railroad museums have an opportunity to create historically-appropriate settings for their restored equipment, and some of the tricks of the film industry could be adapted for this purpose. Some museums have been successful at using historic architecture and landscaping; others have the luxury of an unspoiled-natural setting; and still others have created elaborate indoor dioramas including the use of forced perspective.

It is a tricky subject. Too much artifice and fakery will undermine the authenticity of a museum exhibit, but the absence of an appropriate setting de-contextualizes the artifacts. The visitor's imaginations can only go so far, and they might have a difficult time appreciating the artifacts when they are presented in dusty lots next to metal buildings. Additionally, most probably have little understanding of what turn-of-the-century urbanism looked like.

I do not believe that all railroad museum buildings should be used to re-create historic settings. There is a good argument that such buildings are dishonest and misleading unless they follow the strictest standards of historic reconstruction. "Historically inspired" buildings are worse; these are usually caricatures, like our useful friend Thomas. So what is appropriate? Are there ways for a museum to reasonably represent the context their equipment once operated in? There was a time when museum designers experimented with abstract settings. They would make backdrops out of photographs blown up to full size, or construct simplified sets that were obviously fake, but established a sense of scale. Do these techniques still make sense in a time when computer-generated effects have seemingly destroyed the limits of visual representation? Is there a roll for computer-generated visual effects in our museums? (yet another topic)

Have any museums included the re-creation of historic settings in their planning? New projects could be evaluated for how they will or will not contribute to these settings. Sight lines should be considered. It should be the goal of the museum to exclude anachronistic intrusions from these settings. If these things are not planned, they usually will not happen on their own.

Just for the sake of completeness, it is a valid approach is to isolate an "artifact" from all context in the same manner in which an art museum isolates paintings in simple rooms of white walls. The intentional use of this technique is rare in railroad museums, but it does occur, and is a good way to focus attention on the details of a single piece of equipment. The V&T Empire is more or less displayed in this manner at the California State Railroad Museum. This is the engine surrounded by mirrors across from the SP articulated.

Anyway, I have been thinking about these issues a bit, and would like to hear what others have to say.

Happy Holidays,

Randy

I can definitely understand where you are coming from with this as I would be wonderful to be able to show our artifacts in an environment in which they originally ran. On the other hand, we, as railroad museums, need to preserve the rail cars that we currently have. With the economy the way it is currently, people are spending less. Is it better to build a streetscape to run our streetcars through right now or build a new car barn to house 12 more cars in? Would we like to spend money on building a streetscape and let our cars deteriorate to the point where they are lost, or spend money on building a new car barn to house and stabilize these cars and instead of a streetscape, have information and pictures in the exhibit hall or other space showing people what it was once like? I personally would rather see a museum 'misrepresent' the way the cars were run by having them run through a field instead of through a city setting, and be able to preserve the railroads of yesteryear. You can build that streetscape in the future, but you will never be able to get back that 1912 trolley car or railroad coach that rotted into the ground while you were too busy building that streetscape.
Now, for any organizations that have a million dollars with nothing to spend it on, AND have all of their artifacts protected, by all means, a streetscape would be a wonderful addition to a rail museum so that people could see what it was like back in 1905.

I've not been to the Crich Tramway Museum in England, but judging from photos, they've done a good job of transforming a rock quarry into a proper environment for trams. At my "home museum", Orange Empire, we have cars that Pacific Electric ran in suburban service, and along our main line we have suburban housing tracts. I even have a book with a photo of our PE "Blimp" 418 taken in 1955 when it was running on the Bellflower line--a very similar scene. On the other hand, our SF Muni car 171 looks a bit out of place. This is one of the reasons why I was happy to see our other Muni car (162) go back to The City, where it now runs in its "native habitat".
Much as we'd like to have an appropriate environment for our streetcars to run in, I must agree with the "preserve the cars first, then think about the display" priority order.
In the Highland Park area of Los Angeles, there's an "historic house" display called "Heritage Square" (one critic called in an "architectural petting zoo"). Some years ago plans were made to add a streetcar line to run along the street lined with Victorian and other old homes which were saved from the wrecking crews and moved to this location. A streetcar is stored on the property, but it's a tramcar from Switzerland or Austria; it's under a tarp, but my guess is that it doesn't look like something from LA of a hundred years ago. And I haven't heard of any progress in building track, a carhouse, or even getting the car into running condition after sitting for years. (updates would be appreciated)

The closest we come here in the US to what the fellows in Crich have done, as far as I can tell, are the heritage trolleys operated in Jan Jose's Kelley park by the California Trolley and Railroad Corp. http://www.ctrc.org/projects/trolleys-and-trolleybarn/

Here are a couple of photos I took when we visited this neat operation on the way to the 2006 ARM annual meeting in Sacramento. Jan Jose Railroads No. 124 was one of the restorations led by the legendary Fred Bennett. What a jewel!

Thanks!

I'm overjoyed to see somebody else with an interest (obcession?) in context.

CSRM, as you point out, has done a very fine job of creating several contexts for scenes in their displays, as well as simply displaying the artifacts in neutral ground - but with mirrors to allow EMPIRE to be viewed on all sides from a standing position. This beats just seeing one side by a wide margin. A lot of very good thought and ample resources went in to that museum.

Golden Spike NHS has a fair natural context for their scene - but they spoiled it with a modern visitors center, modern bleachers, modern track hardware, etc. I always thought offering visitors a ride to a site behind Jupiter or 119 that would be visually isolated from all modernity would be a far better experience. It is hard to understand just how remote from any vestige of civilization Promontory Point (and most of the transcontinental line) was in 1869 if you are just 45 seconds away from your car when present there today.

In some places, the site is the main artifact - if one operates on a quarry or logging line, appropriate equipment to such lines seems obligatory to me, assuming interpreting the historical operation of the site is the mission.

I keep coming back to the basement night street scene at Cincinnatti History Museum - it isn't as slick as CSRM, but it is very evocative and works very well.

Railtown in Jamestown, CA is kind of interesting in that a very major part of its history is directly related to creating fake locations for film crews. It is a real time capsule of a shortline facility at the same time. I can't imaginge there is any conceptual limit to what could be done for interpretive purposes there, but the risk in bringing in anything slickly produced is loss of its gritty and economically marginally shabby shortline character. I'm assuming EBT without film history presents similar challenges.

It they ever finish it, the rebuilt V&T will pass through a lot of scenery thaty hasn't changed much since V&T was V&T. The equipment appropriate to V&T isn't available today - more the pity.

I've spent a lot of time unsuccessfully trying to figure out how to provide the reality of an operating historic industrial facility in today's regulatory and economic climate. All I can come up with is far too pale and clean and compromised to come close to providing a slice of real life in a working foundry or roundhouse / backshop in 1890 or whenever. One blacksmith making decorative ironwork doesn't replicate 50 blacksmiths working with 15 coal forges, steam hammers shaking the ground, making huge rods for steam locomotives out of heavy billets, but its the best I could do. I've reached the conclusion that is wasn't better than nothing - since the experience it evoked was fallacious, and displaced the potential of imaginary comprehension.

There's potential in multi media and holographic projection including sound and smell and tensile manipulation. Not mature yet.

There's hope for trolley operation through historic streetcar neighborhoods that may not have been drastically changed as we transition (I sincerely hope) back towards a transit oriented society. Unfortunately, the current Federal schemes better support modern streetcars rather than nostalgically appropriate lines using replica equipment like that in original use. APTA could take a lead here maybe.........and more vendors than GOMACO who will build to suit the customer's requirements instead of one size fits all would help. By being used for its original purpose in its original context it would provide the best interpretive experience of all...........but we have to value it as a society in order to create that reality.

dave

I see you have been reading some theory regarding museology. There are many issues at work here, and most museums make purely pragmatic choices in regard to display, interpretation, etc. However, in the event that a museum actually has the resources to dictate the display environment using criteria other than pure function I feel the following:

1) If you are in possession of a real/historic structure to use as a venue, keep the environment as real as possible even if it negatively impacts "displayability." The reasoning for this is "authentic" railroad environments are increasingly rare. Granted a dirty, dangerous, grungy shop or the like makes a poor display space for artifacts. However, these buildings are artifacts in themselves and should be preserved for what they are. This is admitting of course that these environments are a "palimpcest" and did not exist in their current form and are instead a product of many different eras and processes. This being said, these environments still provide context for the social matrix of railroading which is the MOST important part of any railroad museum's mission. The technology, operations, aesthetics, systemic organization, etc did not exist without people.

2) Extensively altered historic structures and landscapes allow a great deal of flexibility and in these situations, display and interpretive techniques may be incorporated which highlight different aspects of the artifact rather than "context." An example of this might be cut-aways to interpret a technology or the like.

3) New construction should be used to fulfill the mission of the institution to its fullest. However, as a social historian and archaeologist I do not feel that providing a "period" environment is spurious if it is new construction. Indeed, new construction using the technologies, methods, and ethos of the past is potentially MUCH MORE valuable for museums devoted to living history than historical fabric alone. Historic fabric must be protected and preserved which, a priori, assumes that the actual processes in which these artifacts were used are no longer possible. To operate a locomotive, machine shop, structure, etc in the service for which it was designed will consume the artifact. In order to preserve the PROCESS rather than just the PRODUCT necessitates recreation. This is not dishonest to build a period appropriate environment if it is used in the manner it should be.

It is a philosophical debate to be sure, but I feel we as a community are more dishonest in our interpretation of history by running locomotives improperly in a misguided attempt to be easy on the artifact or other similar activities. Our goal should be to provide an experience which is properly interpreted for maximum impact of REAL technology, social organization, and operation. At the end of the day, in order to provide this real experience and authentic environment we must therefore conduct ourselves and our museum activities with an eye to historic process rather than formal analysis. For this reason, "white box" display as is found in the art community is of limited value except in very specialized circumstances. Historic recreation is therefore the only real way to provide this experience without consuming historic fabric.

In my humble opinion of course,

Stathi Pappas

Let me ask this:
Would we be more focused on a correct representation of the past or an idealized one? Most movie sets go for the latter. The scene where Marty McFly first sees 1950s Hill Valley in the first "Back to the Future" film is a classic illustration of this.
CSRM does an amazing job of setting up historical looking backgrounds but I doubt they're really accurate representations of the past. You're missing the warts that you find in historical photographs. RR yards were incredibly dangerous, dirty, dark, polluted places. Who on earth would want to re-create that (even if the EPA would let them)?

I am all for the idea of a recreated city, town or village in association with railroad or trolley preservation. It would be the unusual railway museum which can afford to expand its mission to tackle this addition. However, it is not a bad idea- perhaps partnerships should be investigated in order to make it happen.

In cases where it seems to work, the village comes first with the railroad facililty as an add-on. Sometimes the railroad is more of an amusement park train than a historic train. Other times, the rail equipment is a dormant display.

Good examples of rail and building preservation include Kelley Park, Greenfield Village, Fort Edmonton Park, and the Stuhr Museum. In the past we might have included the private Magee Museum and the Fort Madison, Farmington and Western.

Other examples of with operating (narrow gauge or amusement park) trains include the Agrirama, Erie Canal Village, and Blackberry Farm. There probably are dozens more. Many historic village collections include an old depot and a caboose, coach, and/or locomotive on static display.

Some railroad museums have taken active steps to preserve old structures and relocate them on their grounds. IRM and OERM come to mind, and both have, or have plans for, recreated "Main Street" scenes.

I think further planning in this regard will require urban infrastructure, such as comprehensive drainage, electricity, water supply, and perhaps sewage systems. There is more to the price tag than the buildings, landscaping and pavement.

Films rely on the audiences willing suspension of disbelief - I think most museum visitors come to museums with a very different willingness and set of expectations regarding suspending disbelief. theyw ant to know that what they are being told has basis in historical "truth." Isn't to say that a good film or multimedia accurate interpretation would not be well recieved, however....... it can be a very useful tool.

New construction can include stylistic themes, materials and techniques that evoke an appropriate scale and era without becoming characatures. Good architects that can make it happen are rare.

Artifacts can be used to interpret historic events, demonstrate materials and techniques, show off a time point in technological development, etc - the use of the artifact can help dictate its display contextual framework.

Most concerned about the implied prioritization of visual context without the equally imperative priority of other sensual contextual and experiential stimuli. We need to work on the whole sensory/experiential package to have real impact.

dave

At Kelley Park, we have a terrific relationship with our landlord, History San Jose. Our trolleys are an integral part of HSJ's promotional activities. Additionally, the trolleys are operated as part of HSJ's "transportation experience" program offered to grade school children which includes period automobiles and horse drawn wagons. Our trolley barn volunteers frequently assist with minor repairs of HSJ artifacts.

Both CTRC and HSJ have been working with the city of San Jose toward electrification of our 3/4 mile Happy Hollow line extension with work to start this next week. The extension will link the historical museum with a popular park that attracts 300,000 visitors a year.

Ken Middlebrook
California Trolley and Railroad Corporation

Do the historic cars still run on a downtown loop in San Jose?