At least NRHS members know that there is a problem with the organization and have voted in a new president who can hopefully turn things around before it is too late.

I see this "failure to change" mentality in other hobbies. For example, I have been a member of the grossly-misnamed "World Airline Historical Society" for over 30 years. This organization was started by an individual in Cincinnati after Kalmbach's before-its-time "Airliners International" magazine went bust. Unfortunately, the organization has failed to adapt to changes in the hobby, many of which are similar to the railroad hobby. According to recent WAHS board meeting minutes, that group is down to just over 300 members. In my opinion, it needs to be renamed the "Airline Memorabilia Collectors Club" because the group focuses exclusively on collecting.

The paragraph quoted above applies to the airline hobby as well, and WAHS is just as bad about refusing to change as NRHS is.

I'll second Mr. Bishop's quote " newer generations of train fans DON'T NEED a group like the NRHS."

I'm 36 and I belong to three railroad organizations:

B&ORRHS (my home road)
TRRAHS (my new home)
R&LHS (the national organization that meets my personal interests)

I ride trains for work, I read train books for work, I talk and work with railroad professionals and scholars and fans for work (and they are fine people and I consider many to be friends outside of work.) I'm planning on spending part of the evening at the local train watching spot enjoying a frozen custard and the UP's freights.

Nothing that the NRHS does really interests me to the point that I feel the need to join and part with my hard earned cash. I have multiple internet forums to communicate with others about specific railroad topics, view images and films/videos of trains or share my own imagery of trains.

If the NRHS is going to survive, they need to create a unique mission and reshape themselves so they can accomplish this mission and they need to provide something unique as a product that I and others my age want to give them our money to help them support that mission. It is nearly certain that this will mean the end of the NRHS as we know it today, but given that it appears destined for obsolescence as it currently is structured today, a change of mission will at least put the changes in the hands of the organization and not its creditors.

-Nick Fry

John Hankey, a former director of the B&O Railroad Museum in Baltimore, presently an adjunct professor in the Department of History at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, Chair of the Railway Heritage Initiative, and a consultant to railroad museums and historic preservation projects throughout the United States, has chimed in with an editorial blog post at Trains.com (available to subscribers only):

http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/staff/archiv ... point.aspx

It's a lengthy (almost 2,000 words), far-reaching, verbose (really overly so) examination of the current situation, rehashing most of the valid insights expressed here and adding a few more valuable ones as well. So far there are also a couple lengthy and insightful responses from readers.

Hankey promises further thoughts on this subject in future posts. The NRHS and its members had better listen; a consultant would charge lots of money they can't afford and give them information one-tenth as insightful.

I might appeal to Kalmbach Publishing Co. to push this essay out from behind the paywall, for the sake of the future of the hobby (if not the NRHS).

I think it is already freely accessible. You just have to be registered to post comments.

It's a good article, and worth reading. Anyone know anything substantive about the "litigation?"

[quote="Alexander D. Mitchell IV"]John Hankey, .... has chimed in with an editorial blog post at Trains.com quote}

Hankey's editorial is well written, but contains an inaccurate statement.

NRHS has never borrowed money, so can't be in debt, and (to date) has always paid its bills within a reasonable amount of time.

Bob H

I stand corrected. Darn those misleading "Subscriber-Only Content" icon info boxes in the upper right of those pages......

I know what at least one litigation issue was/is about, but as anything I say is going to get refuted or corrected by a member that hovers over this column seemingly only to do so, I believe we should appeal on him to tell us an "official" version, rather than what I was told by several NRHS National Representatives......

PSA188 wrote "It's a good article, and worth reading. Anyone know anything substantive about the "litigation?"


The litigation is over someone suing the NRHS over an automobile accident that happened at one of the RailCamps. As I understand it, one of the NRHS officers was on official business and someone was seriously injured in the accident and it was not properly insured.

The national has done a terrible job communicating exactly what this has been about. Maybe smart to not talk about ongoing litigation and not discuss details, but even this broad view has been hard to come by.

Matt Bumgarner
(not the hovering member Sandy described... I hope not, anyway)

So, I take it that NRHS does insure its directors/officers against that kind of stuff?

It wouldn't be a Hankey product if it were not both. I've attended some of his presentations and while they do tend to go on and on, his points are valid and well taken.



Most certainly. Any organization worth it's salt carrys Director's and Officer's insurance policies.

Before any more false rumors get spread around:

NRHS has D&O insurance -- (and yes that term reminds me of a certain railroad that is now extinct !)

Bob H

They most certainly will not discuss ongoing litigation-that's standard, sound legal practice. If the matter is settled at some point, that will be done out of court and will be confidential as well (most likely).

And I won't go into details either, but as it was described to me--provided it was, indeed, the incident about which I was informed--it is/was truly one of those hideously messy "gray areas" where lawyers for insurance companies really earn their keep, arguing over exactly whose insurance covers what, how, and when, and whether exemption clauses in typical policies apply.

I am a member of the NRHS Board of Directors. As with almost any corporation, the NRHS will not comment on ongoing litigation. Sorry we can not provide more information. If there are specific questions or concerns I and other officers can be reached through nrhs.com.

Jeff Smith
NRHS Board Member

Two topics mentioned in this thread have been discussed in many other threads on this board.

As stewards of our industrial heritage, preservationists have a need, and obligation, to cultivate an interest in preservation among the generations that follow us. This is not only for the idealistic purpose of “passing the torch”, but also for the very practical reason that a lot of the work of preservation is very physically demanding.

My concern with the 2013 NRHS National Convention had nothing to do with the locale. Alaska, from what I have heard from those who have been there, is spectacular. I understood the logistical considerations that led to the scheduling of the event in September. What I made no sense to me at all is that the NRHS scheduled its premier annual event at a time that made it very impractical for anyone of school age (5 to 21) to attend. An organization that purports to represent the national interests of preservation should not consider a venue for its yearly convention if that venue is only available at a time that largely excludes the next generation.

The second issue is one of corporate governance. The NRHS is a 501(c)(3) and, as such, holds its funds and other assets in public trust. My impression is that 501(c)(3)’s are obligated to be transparent about any activity that may have a material impact on their financial viability and to report it in their financial statements/annual report as a footnote. I do not have access to NRHS’ financials, so I do not know if the potential financial impact of the litigation mentioned in this thread has been duly reported. I’d appreciate it if anyone with a copy of the NRHS’ financials would take a look and report back if there is any mention of this litigation.

As an aside, my understanding of Directors and Officers (D&O) Insurance is that it protects the organization, Directors, and Officers from liability from a cause of action that arises as a result of a Director or Officer carrying out their official duties for the organization. The possible grey area would be in the definition of “official duty”. Outside of the “official duty” parameter, the only other factor that I could think of that would possibly prevent the insurance carrier from paying out is if the cause of action arises from an action taken by a Director or Officer while in the commission of a felony.

When I said "messy," I meant "messy."

As far as *I* was to understand, no one was talking about any felony. However, part of the "mess" would involve whether or not some "wrongdoing" in question qualified as accidental or negligent, whether charges were warranted, and/or whether fault could be ascribed thereof.

Simply as a vaguely comparable situation currently in the news, think of the 9-year-old girl on a shooting range that was recently given the opportunity to fire an Uzi machine gun on full auto, lost control, and killed the instructor standing over her. Imagine you're civil lawyers (not criminal) trying to find fault because of an angry, vengeful wife or parents of the victim. Were the parents negligent for letting a young child do such a thing? The range? The instructor that "paid the ultimate price"? The girl? Is this covered by the range's insurance? Any life insurance? Messy, messy, messy. (Incidentally, last I heard, no criminal charges were being filed in THAT case.)