I decided that I must get involved with this discussion. I am a member of two museums, Mid-Continent and the Minnesota Transportation Museum. These two organizations are very similar in that they are painfully transitioning from "Railroading Club" to Railroad Museum. At MTM we recently rejected a proposal from the board to reorganize ourselves along the lines of the North Shore Railway Museum in Duluth, MN. In that organization the board of directors is an outward facing group chosen to include people who can help the museum set and achieve its goals in the broader community. The board provides the priorities and the funding and the volunteers get the work done. No arguments about priorities because the museum members have no say in its operation.

The "old guard" that started both Mid-Continent and the MTM had a vision of a place where they could operate "heritage" equipment. They were operation-centric and volunteerism was required as everything they had was broken or worn out or both. But there was a shared vision and there was enough to do that nearly everyone could play in his own "playground". Because it was all DIY and pretty much self-funded the "herd of cats" were able to play happily together. Now, 40-50 years later, these folks are quickly fading from the stage. And taking their place are people who do not have that first-hand memory of either railroading as it was or the museum as it was. Nor do they have the sense of ownership that the founders did. They benefit from the hard work and dedication of the founding group but have little or no skin in the game. For both of these organizations, the board of directors must make decisions about what will be funded and what will not. And this infuriates the "herd of cats" because they no longer have free rein to pursue their pet project or interest.

Everyone needs to understand that the days of the "club" are quickly fading and the days of the museum as a business are here to stay.

I believe mldeets was responding to the statement from Dave in which Dave was curious to see the arbitrator's views as a "disinterested third party." Mr. Parker is a life member of MCRM and someone who played a role in creating the 2003 lease agreement. While both sides trusted him to be impartial in his ruling, "disinterested" and "third party" do not necessarily fit in this case.

Jeffrey Lentz

This does add some interesting color to the situation. One can only hope that since he was accepted by all parties his arbitration was sound and rational and fairly based. Should the link ever be posted, I'll certainly read it for educational value, not for any form of blamestorming - I have no dog in this fight, just interested in how this one happened.

Sorry for the delay in the links. But a fellow RYPN'er said he would post them the next time he came back here or something to that effect. I would but do not or have not figured out how to post a PDF Link that will work. When I save it on RYPN the links work here on my PC, but they are not the correct links or do not look like the links from an attachment? Pictures no problems. I know many people following this have the links maybe on "Word". It is a long read not sure how many people will take the time to read it. It was easier for me to read because I knew the people involved and was around when most of the events from 2003 through present time occurred. Just don't try this at home is my advice.

Not to hijack this thread too much but a couple points of clarification since I work for the Lake Superior Railroad Museum and it's operating entity the North Shore Scenic Railroad:

Yes, the board of directors is composed primarily of people 'outside' the organization, and it is their job to work with designated managers to determine priorities and organize funding. Having said that, the board does have several members who are active volunteers and provide a representative voice that incorporates volunteer concerns and perspectives into the decision making process. Both the BOD and paid staff are very cognizant of the fact that without volunteer and member buy in and interest, we would not be able to function as an organization.

Despite the fact that the LSRM and NSSR are usually lumped into the museum/train ride school of rail preservation, both organizations are managed and directed as if they were for profit businesses. We definitely have more in common with for profit tourist railways than the average museum operation. Decisions regarding restoration, equipment utilization, acquisitions and virtually everything else run through two vetting processes: does it improve the bottom line, and does it align with our mission? Every dollar counts in our market, and fortunately for us, many times we can meet both goals.

Having just arrived home from visiting family for Easter I see Mr. Lentz has distilled my thoughts perfectly. Thanks, Jeff...... mld

Hope you had a good Easter Pete and everyone else too. Guess I thought everybody knew Mr Parker had arbitrated the first lease dispute so yes he is not "disinterested" in that he has been intricately involved in this before. Thought this is why MC asked him back so they could pursue getting out of the lease? I just didn't want to misconstrue your thoughts as I wasn't sure. I too did not realize he was a life member as I thought he was from England and have never met him personally? I know very little about him actually but I hear his reputation is considered very good if not stellar by a lot of people. When I read the report he appears to be very thorough and gives great detail on how and why he came to his conclusions. Hope to meet the gentleman some day. Regards, John.

My apologies, I had promised to post these. Here are the two awards from the arbiter. One is the factual decision and the other is a calculation of the damages owed the owner of No. 2.

Sorry, I got pretty busy last week and it ran into the weekend.

Thank you Mr. Turinetti for your clear explanation of the organization there in Duluth. You have obviously made that transition from "Club" and "Tourist Railroad" to something different and appropriate to your market. I only hope that other organizations can make that leap.

Unless I've missed something, no announcement has ever been made regarding #2's new home, right?

The owner of the No. 2 is evaluating several offers to host the locomotive. Testing last year also showed some unexpected issues with the valves that are being dealt with. That, plus a few other minor repairs that were deferred in the push to get FRA approval.

Actually the valves were not a surprise. Owner knew they needed attention and they were indeed deferred and have been reworked over this last winter and spring. Testing/break in has halted at MC and will have to continue when it arrives at the new home. That will be announced by the folks involved when they are ready to announce it.

It would of been "Cheaper to Keep Her". Like the #70 she will be a sweet machine once brake in is finished. Regards, John.

Just heard today via an announcement from TRAINS magazine that the 2 spot is to go to
Garibaldi, Oregon for service on the Oregon Coast Scenic RR.

Not a bad choice, she'll be a lot closer to her former logging home and she'll be among other rod and geared power that has been taken care of while there.

And at a place where there is a real commitment to steam power.

After watching video of the new home to be, I can definitely see the attraction. To see the #2 running in that beautiful country will be rewarding. For the #2 and the owners, congratulations. To the Oregon Coast Scenic RR congratulations. To those at Mid Continent who orchestrated this whole thing I guess congratulations to you too. Seems this is a real win win situation. Regards, John.