Authenticity = Real

I am confused by the following from above:

Scott Turner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And again, I pretty much agree with your thoughts
> here, though you have to be careful with the whole
> idea of marketing "history". My contention is,
> and has strongly been for some time now, that
> there's a growing number of folks who crave
> unique, off-the-beaten-path, authentic (not
> schmalzed up and prettified) places.
>
> Part of this does have to do with history, but
> part of it is simply about seeing and experiencing
> the few places left that are still real. Putting
> too much marketing emphasis on history may even
> backfire, as it's the "realness" that this target
> market values, and museums often connote all the
> rough edges being smoothed over. Call it the
> anti-Disneyland experience if you like. And I
> think it's VERY marketable.

Historical authenticity does not = sterile museum. I can think of few things that are more "real" and authentic than historic sites that are responsibly preserved, maintained, and operated.

Maybe I misunderstood Scott's point, and maybe we are just quibbling over semantics, but John's idea of a Living Museum clearly speaks to me of an authentic working railroad environment. One that I would want to visit.

Is the railroad on the National Register of Historic Places?