As a sometime (recovering) academic myself, I was trained to provide a reference or citation for everything I wrote that wasn't an original idea of my own, and also (for better or for worse) to judge the work of others by their bibliographies.

Yes, the presence of too many footnotes or in-line citations may be distasteful for some lay readers, but with some care they can be allowed to do their job without being too intrusive. As noted above, there are several different reference formats available (the choice of which will depend to some extent on the style of the particular publication), and good editor should be able to help the author maintain the readability of the text without sacrificing the integrity of the research.

References are important not just to be taken seriously, but also to insure that your research remains useful to future generations of scholars. It's the equivalent of "showing your work" when doing calculations.

-Philip Marshall

A work is only as good as its sources.* I prefer end notes at the end of each chapter (not end of book). Footnotes are only necessary if they are best read with the material at hand--a comment or aside. That doesn't mean sources.

*My mentor, Duane H.D. Roller, told me this.

I've seen this method used, and while it's better than not documenting work at all, I personally don't care for it. Numbered notes (I prefer end notes at end of book) are easier to locate and modern word processing eliminates the "organization of numbered footnoting" problem. Agreed that references can be distracting to those who don't care, which is why I like numbered end notes.

Back into the discussion...

My training included Latin foot notes and the Chicago Manual of Style... which called out punctuation as a rigid system... Very formal.

Today I don't worry whether its a coma or a semi-colon after the city... or if one uses loc-cit or op-sit or Idem or Ibid... (but respect those who use them correctly, and note the Chicago Manual of Style has changed... )

But give me some bread crumbs to see where you have been and why you chose your conclusions...

If I question your conclusions, and you fail to give me the bread crumbs, you writing has no value... if you give me bread crumbs and I don't agree I will read your sources and try to follow your logic... and consider your "informed opinion" as a significant alternate version of thought...

Starting some years ago, I have seen "popular" railroad books written by serious authors base on significant research, which in the published version lack foot notes or even a bibliography... but who's authors have offered source lists via mail or email... So providing a book for the popular market, but acknowledging the academic research community. This is probably a good compromise.

I love Bebee's writing... His Colorado Narrow Gauge lead me to love both narrow gauge railways and the Colorado narrow gauge railways... but scholarship suggests that he may have said things beyond facts... But the image he created with his words created a wonderful place which in turn lead me to research the railroads... but I don't consider him a factual source today, but might quote him in a effort to lead to understanding the magic of the place...

Randy

As Utah Josh points out, what passes for "conventional wisdom" through repetition is often wrong or incomplete. Many authors and news people just repeat what has been said before assuming it correct. So we wind up with myths like the origin of standard gauge that are repeated over and over.

There are several examples of railroad writings that do not site sources. The author of one such book said that most of the audience was not interested in sources. But in the end who is the audience of what we are writing and what can a publisher handle? One of the issues in preservation we face is acceptance of what we do. To this end we have to define the audience and understand the abilities of the author and the publishing media used. Railroad publishing has been an interesting study.

A good friend would never allow anyone to stop or slow him. ten years ago he used initially Kinko's and latter spent a significant amount of money on printing his last book. The current writing that inspired this thread is on a subject that involves not only a railroad but its primary customer owner I know not only three different railroad archives were tapped but also writings of the history of its parent owner and their view through the development of the railroad system.

To me railroad preservation needs to expand beyond the railfan discussions that we typically see. It needs to discuss its impact and influence on society. Train rides are nice but in true preservation we need to ensure that the story we tell is not only factual but also confirmable for generations to come.


Robby Peartree

In my mind, we're dealing with two kinds of writing here.

The writings of many authors read eloquently, and can certainly sway the reader into the emotional embrace of just why we are preserving rail history, what got us all interested,. and why and how the soul is stirred by the sights and sounds of doubleheaded steam or a quartet of diesels slugging up a grade. That's nicely done by the likes of Beebe, Stephen Ambrose, Bert Pennypacker, O.S. Nock, Don Ball, and many others.

But right there is the alarm bell. The academic historians will tell you that those writers tended (or at least were all alleged) never to let outright facts get in the way of a good story. (1) I literally chucked out my copy of Ambrose's Nothing Like It In the World (given to me by someone who didn't know) after a particularly egregious error a third of the way in, and now that I think about it that's two inches I could gain in another library removing that book for good....

By contrast, let's look at a few books on my shelves of late from which I can say I learned something:
Empire Express, David Howard Bain: Extensive footnotes at the rear.
Conquering Gotham, Jill Jonnes: Not actual footnotes, but citations for all quotations in rear of book.
The Men Who Loved Trains, Rush Loving Jr.: NO footnotes, but sources are primarily firsthand interviews with the parties in question!
Erie Lackawanna: Death of an American Railroad, 1938-1992, by H. Roger Grant: footnotes in rear.
The Diesel Builders series by John F. Kirkland: Footnotes at end of chapters.
From Steam to Diesel, Albert J. Churella: footnotes at end.
When the Steam Railroads Electrified, William D. Middleton, revised 2nd ed.: No footnotes, but extensive bibliography.
The Engine's Moan: American Steam Whistles Edward A. Fagen [disclaimer: a personal friend]: footnotes in rear.
The Pennsylvania Railroad, Volume 1: Building an Empire, 1846-1917 by Churella: lots of footnotes.
PRR Triumph series, by Roberts and Messer: NO footnotes. (And PRR historians have axes to grind with these books, written by an admitted B&O partisan.)

Now, what distinguishes these books from the typical railfan books?

The typical railfan "history" book is crammed with the who, what, where,. when, and how (much, long, many, powerful, whatever).
The typical academic history book concerns itself with the WHY. Why the PRR was built. Why EMD vanquished steam-legacy builders Alco, Baldwin, and Lima. (2) Why the Erie-Lackawanna perished. (3) Why railroads brought regulation and the ICC upon themselves. Why the Penn Central merger was a failure. Why the Confederacy lost the American Civil War. Why [Fill In an Ethnicity] are responsible for modern civilization/civilisation as we know it.

In every example I've cited in the paragraph above and every other such academic history, the writer is attempting to persuade the reader to accept his/her admittedly subjective viewpoint. There's no opinion in whether or not the PRR had 425 K4s's or 598 I1s locomotives, or whether the western end of the Soo Line was at the end of a branch in Whitetail, Montana. But there IS opinion or conjecture about whether the PRR was "the Standard Railroad of the World" as it slogan said. And if you're proving a point, you have to defend your viewpoint with data or sources.

The "Asperger's/autistic" side of railfanning is the obsession with raw data, or with getting a photo of every loco the railroad has/had, or riding every mile of track possible. The "academic' side of railroad history can be as boring as watching paint dry, but that's what the rest of the avocation looks like to the "layman." What we as an avocation too often lose sight of is the "why". Why ordinary people should care about railroading and railroad history. I tell "civilians" that railroading was to the 19th century what the auto was to the 20th century and the internet is today--a life-changing force in the way we live our lives, do business, and see the world. That one bit of simplistic shorthand makes most people "get it," and I should start charging for it.

But storytelling sells. There's nothing particularly compelling about why the Reading Railroad was built, or why the Rock Island folded--unless you MAKE people care through your writing.

Now, to my eye, the perfect compromise, the folks who could write eloquently and accurately, who could explain things but still make you not only care but transport you there?
David P. Morgan (4) and Fred W. Frailey (5). No footnotes there.

Oh, and just a note: you cite sources, not "site" them (unless you're scanning the horizon for specific sources from afar).

(1) For further discussion, see "The Literature if the Railroad Buff: A Historian's View" by Carl W. Condit, Railroad History #142, Bulletin of the Railway & Locomotive Historical Society, Spring 1980, pp. 7-26.
(2) See Churella, From Steam to Diesel: 1998, Princeton University Press, pp. 3-153.
(3) see Grant, op. cit., pp. 1-228.
(4) See The Mohawk That Refused to Abdicate and Other Tales: Kalmbach Books, 1975.
(5) See Twilight of the Great Trains, Kalmbach Books, 1998; rev. ed. Indiana Univ. Press, 2010