I'm not aware of any equipment being scrapped to make way for cars acquired from Cleveland, though a few cars at FRTM and IRM have been moved outdoors to free up indoor storage space. Maybe you're thinking of the cars scrapped at East Troy, WI?

Folks,

This thread can and most likely will moan and groan about what goes wrong.

I will point out a couple of things that are needed to make things go right.

First, let me say that my thoughts are based on mor than forty years in the museum business with maritime being my weekday job and a volunteer railroad museum being my volunteer weekend activity.

Any organization especially railroad museums that need a lot of space need to own their property. The recent loss in Cleveland was partly due to the group not owning the property that they were using. The groups that own ther land are in the best shape. Two that I can name which own more than 200 acres are the Seashore Trolley Museum and the illinois Railway Museum. Buying land is one of the best ways that any preservation organiztion with large artifacts can insure its success. There is no such thing as a free lunch; I will add that a long term lease also works.

Also, having an endowment will take the bumps out of the long road. Mystic Seaport Museum has learned this. back in the 1970s the "gas crisis" caused a huge drop in visitation and they had to lay off staff, stop ongoing projects, etc etc.

Take a hint from the universities and art museums that have built up endowments. They do not have to worry about the economy or politics; their money is in the bank and is being professionally managed.

If a couple of members of a small museum leave a house or a life insurence policy to the organization the endowment is off and running! As the fund raisers like to say, 'The gift that keeps on giving"

It is true that if you give your collection to a museum you loose controll of it or if you will it; you are gone and don't (presumably) care. How many times have we heard of the life long collection of whatever going to the garbage or the junk man the day after the collector is under ground?

A while back a photography collection was dispersed after a storage locker where it was stored was left and payments lapsed. The interested institution had to use scarce dollars to purchase some of the collection.

Conversely a collector I knew moved his collection to a museum and sold part of it to help the museum meet the cost of caring for the collection into the future.

The museum world is just like anything else done by the hand of man; some of them are better than others. So I say think about where you donate your money, your time or your collection.

I have been lucky with my donations and time spent as a volunteer; I hope all of you do as well!

Ted Miles

I like to think of a museum as custodian of it's contents rather than "owner". They are simply taking care of what they have been trusted with so it can be available to future generations. Look at the items we preserve like children rather than assets. One would not sell their child off to get out of debt, they declare bankruptcy and reorganize. In an ideal world a museum is entrusted to care for an item for eternity and there should be a good plan and funding to do so. The plan and funds are often what is missing and the most difficult to come up with and most museums are close to hand-to-mouth. An endowment is the key, but that is easier said than done. Even the deep pockets of the taxpayers has limitations. I think everyone would like to "do what is best" but most can only do "the best they can". Sadly we loose a lot of historic treasures in the process.

I disagree with the idea of thinking of a collection as a child. Yes, a museum is the custodian of the artifact, however, sometimes parts of a collection should and need to be sold for the benefit of the collection as a whole. The ability to sell off part of a collection should not be an easy process. It needs to have checks and balances in the process to prevent something being sold off in a way it shouldn't be. In addition, any sales of the collection should be restricted to the collection.
If a museum were to declare bankruptcy and reorganize, that could create issues too. The court is not going to think of the collection like a child. It will think of the collection as assets. And, that may result in the museum being forced to sell something off, as opposed to the museum choosing what it will sell off. Also, the financial standing of the museum will be tarnished and it may make people think twice about donating or loaning money to the museum.

According to the article, selling off the collection appears the result of a failed business plan that had focused on a grand expansion near to their local airport. Between 9/11, insurmountable political obstacles, loss of key contributors, etc, the museum could not move forward and began a downward financial spiral. Sadly after mortgaging considerable time and resources on their future, the only chip left for the organization was the collection.

The more important lesson is being realistic in your business planning process and a willingness to revise the plan according to changing environmental conditions.

You must also accept that failure is a possibility when pursuing any business activity, but not a necessity unless the choice is to do nothing. We can plan and plan for contingencies, then one or more we couldn't plan for or didn't see shows up and blindsides us. Work through them, learn from them and move ahead with what grace you can manage onward in life.

It's a perverse universe and we will never outperverse it no matter how hard we try.

dave

Keeping your organization debt free is perhaps the biggest single thing that can be done. Now would I get a loan to try to save the Stewartstown from the scrap man? Yes. Between having no Stewartstown and one struggling with debt, I would say let's struggle. But would I get a loan to upgrade to shops and station of my local operating tourist railroad. No way! Never.

Depends if you're a charity or not. For a charity, law requires that deference be paid to the charity's mission, and that assets be distributed first to like-minded charities, and failing that, to other charities. You can sell assets to private individuals, but for not less than fair market value (unless all parties want to pay intermediate sanctions of 225% of the improper value, directly to the IRS, do not pass go do not declare bankruptcy.)

I suppose in a bankruptcy court, a judge might decide "every asset for itself, let's have a fire sale" -- but I think he would be hard pressed to do that if another nonprofit were waiting in the wings to take over the failed nonprofit's role, or if a Chapter 11 reorg was practicable. In other words I believe most courts would view creditors < collection.

In Western Reserve's case, I see the problem right off the bat -- they decided to invade their endowment to fund their project. What I mean is, they had an "endowment", a chunk of capital whose sole purpose is to generate earnings/dividends. You draw money from the endowment at a slower rate than it appreciates on average, typically 4-7% a year, and you use that money to "keep the lights on" at the museum. Having constructed a golden goose from the goodwill of their benefactors, they decided to gut-shoot it, taking much of the capital for their project, and promising to "repay it later". IANAL but I believe doing that is quite illegal, both because "later" might never come, and even if it does come, the endowment is deprived of the income that money would have earned.

The right way to do that is to take a mortgage and use endowment earnings to pay the mortgage. That gives a lot more flexibility too.

Following up on the discussions of the SS Nobska restoration on the first page of this older discussion string, I noticed the other day that the SS Nobska website left up as a "memorial" to the ship following its scrapping, has finally been taken down. Also, the 1996 article on the New Bedford Standard Times site about how the grants to the Nobska were going to revolutionize occupational training in New Bedford (by teaching students reciprocating engine technology) has also been taken down, along with the showcase photos of students "working" on parts of the engine with files and hammers. There were initially some reports at the time of the scrapping of the ship, that the Nobska engine (what was left of it) had been set aside in a warehouse in Fall River for placement with a museum. I have not seen any reports on the location or condition of the engine since then.

PC

Pcook, the engine had been removed in order to be "rebuilt" at the New Bedford Technical and Vocational High School.
The rebuild consisted of the dismantlement of the engine under the supervision of one of the anointed and appointed. and that was all that he did, leaving the dismantled engine there.
He was well paid. The project could have got the last engineer to do the work, he would have gladly volunteered to help. I was told by one of the trustees that the man they hired "knows all about the engine he is a Mass Maritime graduate" The same individual, the man they hired, not the trustee previously managed the purchasing for the project and later supervised the last phase of the hull rebuild, where they completely deviated from the previously approved ABS plans.
I made patterns and had cast the previously destroyed cylinder and valve covers for the engine. These castings sat around a machine shop for about four years while the shop waited for a purchase order to do the machine work. When the group was uninterested or unable to remove the casting from the shop the casting were scrapped during a clean up the shop drive.
I still have the patterns, maybe a interior decorator could use them somewhere.
Coincidentally, the day before you posted I drove by the location where the engine parts were stored, there was no trace of the two main cylinder, cylinder support frames and bedplates that were outdoors under tarps. The office was closed for the day.
Someday if I get down there again I will inquire about their fate.

Rollerman, thanks for the update. Sorry to hear of the fate of the engine, although it is not inconsistent with the rest of the very sad story of the SS Nobska restoration.

I keep a copy of the New Bedford Standard Times article about the students participating in the restoration. It is one of the finest examples of cheerleading and "fluff" journalism I have ever seen.

PC

I just found this old file. The Boston Globe, our crusading newspaper had a reporter write a
"Sob Story" piece about Nobska after the job was shut down and the vessel sat in the dry dock.
The writer of that story would not return my phone calls to learn the true facts about the project. Never get the facts, just get the story!
The Commonwealth of MA Highway Department, the disburser of the three million dollars of federal funds expressed no interest in investigating the situation, might make them look bad. The treasurer of the group told me " we got a clean audit from the state" Everybody happy! Over the life of the foundation they wisely changed the name from "Friends of Nobska to the New England Steamship Foundation, With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Just curious, was the "last engineer" that you mentioned in your posts "J.D." from Fairhaven?

The New Bedford area has one of the worst records with marine preservation. Any hull floating in New Bedford Harbor quickly becomes a hole in the water into which you pour money.

PC

That's the definition of ANY boat.

PCook, Yes, that was Joe, a good guy!
Actually Nobska never got to New Bedford. New Bedford had enough problems already. Nobska was birthed in Providence until it was towed to the former navy yard, now a national park in Charlestown, MA