Paul, Jim and all;
You gentlemen bring up an issue for which there probably isn't a
"one-size-fits-all" solution. Assembling publications year-in and
year-out is a great deal of effort, and no matter how well you do it,
nor how capable you are at turning the publications out on schedule,
there will always be some contingent of the membership that is
disappointed. In short, it can be a very lonely job.
I speak from experience, for since 1993, I have been the Publications
Editor for the Ann Arbor Railroad Technical and Historical Association.
The Ann Arbor of years past was a bridge line running from Toledo, Ohio
up to the port city of Elberta, Michigan and the road pioneered the use
of cross-lake car ferries in 1892. Ferry service ended abruptly in
1982, and the present day Ann Arbor is but a shadow of its former self.
The road has a very enthusiastic following, but that enthusiasm does not
translate into large numbers of people willing to author articles or
contribute material. During my tenure, I have authored many articles
about steam and early-diesel era freight cars, interesting locations on
the AA, and created scale drawings and maps from photos and other scant
evidence. Being a modeler myself, I always come at it from the
modeler's perspective in that I try to include material and data that
would allow someone to model that particular scene or equipment. The
history is very important and the "real-life" stories and reflections
make the material all the more interesting and enjoyable, but I always
attempt to make sure that the modeler's needs are also taken into
account.
Sometimes I'm more successful than others. For much of twenty years, a
given issue of the AARRT&HA publication "The Double A" has contained
several "mini-features" usually anchored by one main article. During my
tenure, that approach has changed some, and I often do an issue where
everything centers around a specific subject such an important town or
junction, or type of equipment. I use all the material at my disposal,
Public and Employee Timetables, ICC Valuation reports, Sanborn Maps,
photos, post cards, line charts, etc., etc. and beg or borrow everything
that I can. If possible, I also create scale drawings of structures (or
if I'm lucky, another member will created them). This approach has
drawn very favorable feedback from the AARRT&HA membership, and I've
been very pleased with how these issues turn out.
When I cover freight cars, I include a table of all available ORER data
(I've assembled a record from nearly every year), builders photos when
available, all in-service photos, lettering diagrams, detailed
information about paint schemes, variations, service modifications,
retirements, etc.. Often, a piece about how to model the cars is
included. This approach generally pleases the freight car historians
and modelers in a big way.
Another thing that I've done several times is to take an interesting
photo showing a yard scene or part of a freight train on the Ann Arbor,
and go through car by car with concise suggestions for how to model them
(i.e. what model to use, what modifications are needed, what decals to
use, etc.). In spite of all the detail in the modeling press today,
members seem to really like this, since it is a prototype scene set in
time and place from "your railroad name goes here". The problem? Not
enough available photos for which to do this.
Are all the AARRT&HA members happy at once? Probably very rarely. If I
cover the steam era, there'll be some who wanted to see orange GP35s,
and vice-versa. If I spend a lot of time on "dry" corporate history or
a wreck, the modelers don't like it. If I include a detailed "how to"
article for modelers, then the "historians" aren't satisfied. You can't
please all the people all the time. Further, the focus of my writing
often logically reflects my preference for the steam and early diesel
years, because that's where my passion lies and my knowledge base has
been built. If there is a magical formula, I've yet to run across it.
So what's the historical society to do?
First, I think that the BRHS, (just like the AARRT&HA, WRHS, C&OHS, and
every other group I've belonged to) needs to do a better job of sharing
information outside the regular forum of its publications. This means
vanquishing any existing territoriality and possessiveness which is
still too prevalent in certain corners of most groups. THE GOAL: to make
prototype information i.e. maps, copy photos, diagrams, drawings,
etc.(and particularly that from archives and collections which belong to
a society and were donated by current and former members) MUCH more
readily available to members .
Obviously, there will be costs (and risks) associated with doing this,
but the benefits will be reaped in many ways and in my mind the
long-term welfare of the society will be greatly enhanced.
For instance, many potential authors exist among our ranks, but they are
hampered by a lack of available information from which to assemble a
worthy article. An editor's job is a lot easier when people are writing
well-researched, detailed articles and contributing information based on
their own particular point of interest and expertise. And when that
occurs, all of the membership benefits, because they get to see material
that they might not have otherwise.
Another benefit to be derived from improving the availability of
prototype information is that the members (particularly modelers) will
remain interested and engaged participants in the historical society.
If prototype modeling continues to become more and more popular,
modelers will always be taunted by other roads to model, and the
attraction will often correlate directly to the amount of accurate
information available and whether models exist from which to create a
credible replica.
I can speak to this directly, since my interest in the Burlington and
affiliation with the BRHS stems directly from the B&W/B&NW issue of the
BB that Dave Lotz and Charles Franzen did a few years ago. The Ann
Arbor is a very neat railroad, but requires a lot of compromises to
model in the steam era (which is when I'd really like to model). Dave
and Charles opened my eyes to a railroad in my own back yard which was
interesting, could be easily modeled in HO scale during the 1930's and
best of all, BB #30 and its accompanying Mt. Union and Yarmouth depot
drawings contains enough prototype information to get a person started
on that endeavor.
But you know what? There is another former CB&Q branch here in Iowa
that I'd rather model (primarily because it has more traffic
potential). The line from Albia up to Des Moines that paralleled the
Wabash for part of its run. And...if there were the same level of
information available that line that there is for the B&NW/B&W (or the
Ann Arbor for that matter), I'd model Albia to Tracy and beyond in a
heartbeat. And...If I had that same amount of information, I'd be very
willing to write it up into an article and share it with other BRHS
members.
Would the Lines West guys like it? I don't know, but I'd sure try to
include material that would be engaging to all CB&Q fans. I think you
get my point though. We won't always be equally happy with what shows
up in our mailbox, but we can influence what shows up by becoming
involved. The BB is an impressive publication and one which any
historical society would be proud to call its own. But the BB can't, and
shouldn't be, the only vehicle for disseminating comprehensive prototype
information to the membership. Of course that's my opinion, I could be
wrong. I welcome your thoughts on this and any other topics.
Kind regards, Rob Adams
kzach@e... wrote:
>
> Paul-
>
> Have to echo your sentiments about the contents of the Bulletin. Some
> photos were of interest to me, but that's about it. I
> would much prefer the Society do something along the lines of the Soo
> Line and/or Milwaukee Road publications; possibly
> with one major topic and several side subjects. I particularly like
> the type of coverage in the Milwaukee issues covering
> topics like Washington, IA and Dubuque, IA; with the aerial
> photographs. I don't know if this kind of stuff exists for Q subjects,
> and I shouldn't say anything unless I have something to contribute
> myself; but it's just food for thought. It's obvious from the
> quality of every Bulletin that an extraordinary amount of research
> and hard work goes into it; but I'd bet that a lot of members
> beside myself share Paul's sentiments.
>
> Jim Zach
>
|