I recently dug up this highly critical article on heritage railways written in 2002 from an academic viewpoint - railway enthuisasts seem to be rather unaware of their bad reputation in academia. Its basic thesis is that they should change heavily to become worthy museums. Some selected quotes, which should give an idea of the tone of its argument and the nature of its recommendations:
These are (mostly) not arguments solely exclusive to academia - often you find some enthusiast complaining about heritage railways being "Disneyfied". To me the argument strikes at the fact that most volunteers on heritage railways are not really interested in running a museum - they want to run a railway. It also gives insight into the sort of mindset that is probably behind such controversial decisions as the deaccessioning of the T3. Any thoughts?
[Preserved railways] are more concerned with physical conservation than elucidating the social parameters of industrial development.
[Preserved railways "prefigure" the past] to provide for an uncontroversial reading - social and natural harmony are key themes... [as well as reproducing] "a mythologized account of working class life".
By becoming redefined in terms of the tourist gaze, railways become absorbed into a picturesque rural landscape and thus divorced from their history as parts of industrial society.
Visitors might, for example, purchase their admission tickets in a modern structure, or an older but clearly adapted building, offering the chance to think about the history of the railway, its workforce and its relationship to the surrounding places and landscapes. Only then would they pass onto the terrain of the railway itself. Naturally, the form and content of these displays would be of the utmost importance if they are to be attractive to visitors and are not simply to reproduce the kinds of myths heritage railways already trade on. The most valuable role the exhibtions might perform is encouraging people to think about historical re-enactment as a form of play; this in itself might alert visitors to the different ways the past can be represented and call their attention to the partial nature of the representation they are about to witness.
Part of what is needed is a reworking of the experience of the journey so that greater emphasis is given to the wider landscape and places served by the line, and less to the element of transport and the physical features of the railway itself.
These are (mostly) not arguments solely exclusive to academia - often you find some enthusiast complaining about heritage railways being "Disneyfied". To me the argument strikes at the fact that most volunteers on heritage railways are not really interested in running a museum - they want to run a railway. It also gives insight into the sort of mindset that is probably behind such controversial decisions as the deaccessioning of the T3. Any thoughts?