In the most recent discussions regarding the state of affairs in New Jersey and many other places, I thought I would offer some thought, that might bring on interesting discussion, that indeed could be beneficial. After reading about the Erie motor car, the scrapping in Baltimore, the state of affairs in NJ with equipment being cut up in North Jersey, being burned in Southern New Jersey, and being neglected in other parts, I find it necessary to think why this is happening.

There is no one simple answer. Most of this equipment is 50-100 years in age, had a service life, survived for one reason or another, and today after surviving is in jeopardy due to neglect likely either caused by lack of funds, lack of desire, over collecting, or a multitude of other reasons.

One thing is common, is neglect. This is not just in New Jersey, and not just a non-profit museum, or private owner situation. It has all the elements. Another thing is common, the neglect happens outdoors, in somewhat unprotected areas. Most equipment that does make it inside, has far better odds and a far great opportunity to survive out of the weather, out of the vandals site, etc.

The answer for long term survival in my opinion requires no more thought than the roof that is over your head. Protection ! I would not leave a 1957 corvette outside, it would go in a garage. With that being said, how could you leave a 1920 heavyweight outside, with no protection and no effort to maintain it ?

In my opinion, a large majority of museums, and private owners, are fighting a losing battle. The battle over yearly maintenance, yearly painting, and yearly efforts to preserve or restore steel and or wood objects of 50-100 years. Every dollar that is spent, re-painting a car or repairing vandalism should not have been spent. The solution, is either an extremely active volunteer crew that can go back over items showing signs of decay, or indoor storage.

I personally commend places like OERM in California, that recognized, the need to get their stuff inside. They initiated a "cover the cars" campaign, at they appear to have 170 pieces of equipment. It would appear they understood that with 5 existing buildings, that only 40 percent of their equipment had a safe, secure indoor home They acknowledged that " There are simply not enough resources available to continually work on tarps, roof repairs and conservation paint jobs for over 100 pieces of equipment stored outdoors "... so... they are now completing a steel frame building, with 64,000 square feet of indoor storage.

I understand, there is so much equipment that it all can't be indoors.... However I have seen first hand, cars that ran in revenue service, to a location, and 40 years later, have not been touched.

In my eyes, long term preservation, requires any piece, no matter if its a Baldwin diesel, or a business car to be inside. The elements over time will win these battles, time is no longer on the side of cars that were preserved.

Question .... Would the Loretto of burned in Altoona if it was inside ? My suspicion is no.... Would vandals have trashed the CNJ Blue Comet observation car in South Plainfield NJ ... likely no...

Some priceless irreplaceable objects, left outdoors.... so ... perhaps the answer is more simple than originally thought.


Dean Levin

..and I don't think any of us would disagree with you, however reality is somewhat different. Take the museum I belong to for example. We currently have perhaps a dozen pieces of equipment that are not under cover, and I'm told because of this several pieces are either at the point of collapse at worst, or never being restorable at best. One of the pieces is a Preston Car company built interurban, with mahoghany interior, the other being an ex L&PS nee Pere Marquette caboose. Because they have sat outside uncovered now for 30 years, they are falling apart. Our museum has endeavoured to build covered space for such equipment, to arrest such decay. However the municipality wants to charge us full development fees for the structures ("oh, you want to erect a 25,000 sq ft building?") Costs are calculated as if we were putting up something like an office tower, except we don't even need any services but basic electricity, and we're not even in a location that has serviced lots anyway.
So here we are, and there they sit. We have built the track for the barns,
have the plans for the structures, but we can't afford the development charges and the municipality won't budge. We have even tried newspaper articles, and other media attempts to try and get them over on our side, but to my knowledge nothing has worked. So yes, we would like to get our equipment inside, but who is going to pay?

Finders: go to a municipality that will value and support you rather than impose limitations. Your work may well reap rewards for a community in terms of tourism and dollars, and you deserve to be better treated.

Dean - right on all counts. The reality is, we have a whole lot more stuff than we can responsibly care for, and triage will happen, whether intentional or not.

Collections management can be self imposed, or accidental. Isn't it better if we take it on and do it ourselves, according to a plan?

I commend the B&O Museum for making a rational hard decision about their surplus stock, I just wish we would all make a habit of offering whatever we define as surplus to each other before calling in the scrappers.

dave

I don't think anyone would argue that they don't want indoor storage, but you are using a simple solution that is not at all easy to reach.

The group I am with is going through a similar problem, and all we have is 4 railroad speeders to store. Again this is in Northern NJ where a flat 50' x 100' lot over $100,000 now. If it has a structure on it you won't touch it for less than $200,000. The only new houses built now a days in NNJ are in the $700,000 plus range, no joke. If you don't meet the zoning, water quality regs, etc. you can not build any type of structure on a lot. Hence the reason only expensive houses are being built, the builders claim they make no money on smaller houses due to these same regs. Now if the URHS were to look into a structure you are talking millions of dollars by the time you get something near or on a railroad and have it constructed with the current regs in place. Hence the reason they want a museum. Then if they had it you could then justify spending that much money.

Back to my example with the speeders, right now most of our equipment resides outdoors at various members houses, but how long can you expect your members or their neighbors to put up with having a railroad speeder and vehicular trailer sitting in their yard. Bring another in and it becomes a problem. We do have a shipping container on a railline that two can be stored in, but it is in a remote location which requires a one hour drive for most members. While it is the right price, free, it isn't convenient.

Inside storage is great, but again it comes down to money, if these groups don't have enough maintain the current state of their equipment where the heck will they get additional dollars to go through the design, gov't development application process and the added construction costs to me those regs to build a building? Then you have to heat the building, maintain utilities to it, insure it, and general maintenance of the structure too. There are huge investments of time and money that most rinky dink volunteer groups are not going to be able to ever accomplish. Most municipal land use boards don't care if your a non-profit group, they have development rules that they must adhere to and they aren't going to bend them for anyone. It costs them money to review those plans, so they need to charge fees to cover that cost.

Having a building doesn't necessarily mean you are secure either. Didn't the Strasburg and another RR have a theft of specific, historical items stored indoors in secure structures?

I have to agree about what "stuff" is being preserved. Are all DL&W MU cars and trailers worth saving? How many are left today? How about GG-1s, how many are saved? Do they all need to be? None will ever run again, so they are just an oversized paperweight. There is no magic answer and unfortunately the only things that will solve our problems are more money in the coffers, and more members in our ranks.

Chris

And you aren't going to get more members and more money in unless you are good at getting the word out, and that is where a substantial segment of the preservation community and many of the railroad historical societies fall short. Events that could generate public interest don't get promoted adequately, and sometimes when something is being done that does have a good potential to attract a crowd the word doesn't get out until after it is over. So the group just muddles along wondering why folks aren't beating a path to their door. Same thing, over and over and over. We have some libraries in my area that do a better job of promoting their events than the local historical groups do. It is a pretty sad state of affairs.

There is also a prevailing thinking in the preservation community that tends to strongly favor potential display sites that are "authentic" railroad facilities, and that limits the options for potential locations. I wonder how much of the URHS collection could have been preserved and displayed in a place like the former MK Rail Mountain Top facility (a former Foster-Wheeler plant if I recall correctly), which had interior tracks adequate to assemble the CSX Iron Highway train, yard trackage at each end of the building, a test track in back, a large parking lot, and fences all around. Of course, it wasn't in New Jersey, and the large building would have cost a lot to maintain, heat, and light.

In my eyes, it starts with a fundamental plan for being responsible for the items in which you control ( both in a private and non profit ) sector...In other words, as railroad equipment are different than museums displaying cars, trucks and for that matter planes and boats, its unrealistic to have a museum away from "live" rail, and as mentioned previously, real estate values in somewhat urban settings often prohibit obtaining land due to cost and geographic location ( ie you wouldn't want a railroad museum per say in Newark )...and in Southern NJ, would not give you enough walk up traffic.. etc etc..

I agree, money is the driving force...However an incomplete plan, even with lots of money is a recipe for difficulty. Examples that come to mind include Steamtown and Altoona... Both places have / had lots of money, yet the results at least initially were questionable.

However on a positive side, Altoona is building a roundhouse, with things such as the round end PRR lounge car, the K4, Loretto, GG1 finally to see an indoor home. All would likely agree, this historic equipment has seen too many hard Pennsylvania winter months, and will be fortunate to make it inside. The B&O museum has a restoration shop, museums in the west are horse trading equipment to better place certain pieces in the right locations and redefine their core collections.

With that being said, money hasn't always made things right, however it certainly does not hurt. However, it doesn't take money to know that certain equipment falls outside of the mission of a museum, or to know that if you don't replace the windows that were broken out by kids, that a fire is likely the next step.

Fund raising for indoor storage, no matter what the manner, should be an essential part of every museum location. No matter if its temporary structures, or finished museum display floors, time and the elements are destroying many of the unseen treasures at museum's and sidings all around this country.

If a building fund or line item doesn't exist on an executive summary report, than no money ever gets allocated

Simple fact.


Dean Levin

Dave Whatizname sez:


Stated by someone who seems to be trying to be unrealistic.

Just to create some hypothetical examples, supposing that Altoona, Pa. for some strange reason becomes hostile to the rail museum there. You don't just up and move a Railroaders Memorial Museum to Johnstown or another rail shop town (DuBois? Renovo?).

Baltimore (just like most major cities, apparently) is at times hostile to the needs of nonprofit preservationists in their lust for more tax base. If there were adequate cause, should we then abandin Mount Clare Station and the roundhouse and the "First Mile of Railroad in America" and move the B&O Museum to Ellicott City? Or Brunswick, Md., or Cumberland, or Willard?

Yes, some places can, and have, moved for economic reasons, most notably Steamtown. But many a place starts out in what was a friendly environment, only to have things degenerate in another generation.

Dean,

Funny you should mention Newark. In the last ten years, Newark has been the beneficiary of a new (minor) league baseball stadium, a new performing arts center with a new hockey arena being constructed as I write this. As far as I know, none of these facilties pay any property taxes.
On the other hand, these facilities are seen as beneficial by all the various stakeholders. On another level, they might be considered metaphorical 'trophys' in certain trophy cases.

Can anyone name an exisiting good sized railroad museum that is viewed in the same light ? A museum that is not only well-patronized by visitors-but is supported in one form or another by government and corporate largesse.

Once upon a time, there were three auto assembly plants in the northern part of NJ. The Ford plant in Mahwah became an office park. More recently, the Ford plant in New Brunswick ? was demolished and is going to be developed-as an office park. Finally, there is the GM plant in Linden that is closed and will be leveled, sooner if not later.

If you are a 'manager' of a NJ town-who are you going to solicit for these large tracts of land-a development that will pay taxes either directly or indirectly-or a non-profit that will pay no taxes and create little in the
way of meaningful employment ?

IMHO, the solution to the problem comes down to a small number of essential principles which are: a) operate with realistic expectations on all fronts and b) build credibility with those who can hold sway over your groups fate.

Dave

Moving isn't *that* crazy, is it?

*Steamtown moved twice (some would argue more, actually)

*Jobstown-Buckingham-Philly-Scranton trolley museum moved 3 and a half times

*Edaville gear moved to Portland

*RMNE is finishing up moving across CT

*Forney musem moved across Denver

I am sure there are other examples.

Rob

I think this thread should be retitled. I got the e-mail about the Balitmore scrappings from a friend the same day my latest issue of Heritage Railway arrived. While my US e-mail says "artifacts scrapped," my UK magazine touts "scrap yard loco returned to steam in one year!"

Quite ironic.

Rob

OK, time for some random thoughts related to this discussion---

A museum may not pay taxes in the traditional sense that NH Dave discusses regarding the NJ auto plants; however, when you attract enough visitors, there is a significant POSITIVE economic impact. The "powers that be" in Waterbury have certainly taken notice of our DOWT event which RMNE holds in Waterbury (not our usual home base of Thomaston), and they have done the research and determined that the last two years' DOWT events brought over $500,000 each in activity to the city.

There are "multipliers" and "ripple effect" calculations that are very commonly used for this sort of thing. But one has to be realistic and not overstate the projected ridership/visitor count when doing the proposals.

I would say that CSRM in Sacramento is---

Can anyone name an exisiting good sized railroad museum that is viewed in the same light ? A museum that is not only well-patronized by visitors-but is supported in one form or another by government and corporate largesse.

Moving is a big pain in the butt. We had a number of locations that did not pan out for us and cost lots of (wasted) resources-- volunteer time, scarce funds spent, etc. Those guys in Ontario have a big problem, and the solution is not to move the museum.

The location for a New Jersey museum was Liberty State Park, period. The right demographics, a good use for a historic rail terminal, etc. In 1976, I was a bit involved in an early, governmentally-sponsored effort to do just that at the CNJ terminal, and we also had the Communipaw roundhouse, turntable, coal dock, office building, power house, etc. intact (track had just been pulled) and planned to become part of the complex. That's where the Science Center is now. The proposed museum was to be not simply NJ, but a NY-region rail and transport museum.

In the northeast, it is expensive and difficult to build structures, even simple carbarns like IRM has so many of (10,000+ feet of track under roof and more coming). A building is the only long-term solution for this stuff and it's tough to do in our part of the country.

Howard P.
RMNE

I would make that case that this proves my point. Of the examples listed, how many of them were, at the time of moving, firmly-established operations with proven track records? And how many have since improved their lot in life? Maine Narrow Gauge is a shadow of its former self; the Philly trolley group has been constantly disorganized and in temporary homes; Steamtown is its own book of debate; etc.

My best gauge of such a situation: If suddenly "your" museum/operation were in the way of a massive public works project (say, an Interstate highway, or a convention center, library, sports stadium, etc.), would your city/county/state be fighting to help find you a better home, or would they be saying "don't let the door hit you on the way out"?

One other thing to consider about goverments. The person or people there now might not like you, oh well, try and make sure the next grouop in does or at least not hate you. With term limitations this is becoming more important. Throw in coruption getting the jerks out, plus the days of life time offices are starting to die out. this all adds up to a change. For the good or worse is some what up to you.
Case in point , change at the state level helped us alot. Change at the county level helped us alot. We made the good in roads right from the start and it paid off big time.
Playing politics may prevent a move and help you grow even in not such a good location. Fighting and hiding under a rock gets you no where. Getting along might help stave the costs of the building department. Working with them is much easier than working against. Making the Jerks look like the jerks they are doesn't help. humor them and play the game.
Last thing, VOTE, and let them know you vote. The smaller the area the more important that becomes. The 10 minutes it takes to vote is well worth the time.

Wow, Sandy: I sure think that RMNE is better off now than we were 20 years ago. Our search for a home of our own started in the summer of 1986, and we made a deal in Waterbury in 1995. We've been operating the Naugatuck for 10 years (Sept. 1996 was the first trip), and I think we've grown and become a modest success. But it's been a long slow process to move the rest of the stuff, and it's not complete yet.

But, let's be starkly realistic. Very few of us would survive your hypothetical scenario if the "gummint" wanted our site. See "Kelo vs. New London".

Howard P.

Well Sandy, all our heavy stuff is on wheels anyhow........

If the choice is to continually fight losing battles with superior forces and gradually dwindle into insignificance, or to move into a location where superior forces support rather than oppose, moving certainly doesn't seem illogical to me. Staying and fighting losing battles does.

It also provides an incentive to do the collections management thing.

Presenting extreme hypotheticals is probably further outside the realm of reality.

dave whatzisname