I get requests all the time by organizations wanting to use my train pictures for all sorts of things. I seldom say no.

Today I got an email from the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. They want to use my pictures on their website "for a new project. Rails-to-Trails received a grant from American Express to further educate individuals of the historic significance behind the trails they access."

Yes, teaching people who use a trail what it was and meant is very worthwhile but, as you may suspect, I have difficulty supporting Rails-to-Trails. So I'm torn. The current Adirondack Scenic Ry fight really makes it difficult.

What do you think I should do and why? Thanks.

I would write back to them, saying that you are not necessarily in favor of the removal of extant track for non-railroad recreational use. You would prefer not to have your photos used to promote rails to trails as a blanket cause. Then thank them for their request.

For me, it would depend on the trail..
The vast majority of "rail trails" are made from ROW's where the rails have been removed for decades, there is no chance the rails are ever coming back, and they are simply "improving" the ROW for bikes and etc..
In that case, I would be fine with letting them use my info..

The Adirondack case is totally different, and I would *not* let any group interested in turning it into a trail use my material..

Those are two very different scenarios! and IMO the response should be made on a case-by-case basis..

Im pretty sure the "Rails-to-Trails Conservancy" is mainly concerned with making trails from *abandoned* rights of way..not taking out existing railroads to convert into trails..The top of their webpage says:
"Creating a nationwide network of trails from former rail lines and connecting corridors to build healthier places for healthier people" (emphasis added)
although I dont know: do they have any specific stance on the Adirondack situation?

Scot

I can see what your up against and if it were me i would email R. to T. C. back and ask them if they support ripping up a perfectly good railroad line to build a rail trail then they can look elsewhere for photo's.

This is what urks me about the whole rail trail thing and yes i'm even on a local rail trail board in the county in wich i live in. I don't have a problem seeing an abandoned RR line that's been ripped up say for 10-30 years and overgrown with trees to be utilized as a bike trail. I'm also a engineer for a class 1 railroad so yes i like trains and the history of railroads.

In the county i live we have a line that was ripped up back in 1976 in wich some portions were sold off in a few places, in the country in a few spots farmers obliviated the row to farm more even though they didn't own the property and the rest became overgrown with trees. I've seen alot of progress made over the past 10 years and we've gained alot of public support even from some people that opposed the project in the begining. And none of this or any funding came from the R to T C. people down in Washington D.C. !

We often have people ask and think we are funded by RTC. We have our own trail board,apply for grants, and raise our own money thru events,and also get donations thru memberships and alot of work is done by volunteers. One thing i personally would not do would be to support ripping up of a rail line to make a trail!

A few years ago we aquired a 1863 built depot wich we use as our trail headquarters, meeting room and small interperative RR museum of local railroad history. And yes it is full of alot of local pictures! We get letters of endorsement from organizations throughout the county and have made alot of progress. Sure i would rather see rail with trains traveling back on the line but it wasn't ment to be! I personally have restored several W-posts and other RR signage that has been put back up along the trail/RR row. I also restored and fabricated up a train order signal for in front of the depot. For us it's been a good thing that didn't have alot of support at first but people like it now and it's become a good thing and were preserving RR history in a trail kind of way.

"Kick this around"? Wait, let me get the steel-toe boots!

Here's my problem with this.

The RtTC does a tremendous job of taking rail corridors and "preserving" them for trail use. But never--NEVER--have I seen them in a situation where they really and truly worked with, or for, rail preservation as a bonus of getting a trail. In nearly every case that *I* have seen or worked with, the RtTC has viewed the rails as something to get out of the way, not something to preserve. Sure, they will make platitudes about recognizing the "rail heritage and history," but should a reasonable need for rails to return come forth--a freight customer, a tourist line, or even Light Rail--they have fought to preserve the hiking/biking path.

Now, this has been PAST history. Maybe they've changed their strategy. It might be worth an e-mail dialogue with them. (And, frankly, they're "political" enough that I would expect them to tell you whatever they think you want to hear, and they'll tell someone else something different, or at best they'll use classically evasive "politispeak".)

Further questioning is warranted.

It might be interesting to condition the copyright grant on a donation of some money (significant amount) in their name to some restoration project of your choice.

I rather think this request is something of a pattern, using the product of somebody else's labor for their purposes.

I would grant the request with the provision that they are only available for existing trails and that as "superheater" suggested, the fee for their use be put into whatever preservation cause you personally support, as a way to have the trail folks support railroad preservation. Its more pragmatism than philosophy from my point of view.

Like preservation of the CMSR!

I'm afraid my reply to the Rails to Trails types would be quite blunt, and not positive.

Steve Hunter

I would gladly share info and pictures on a case by case basis if the trails in question were not disruptive to preservation or the national rail network.

I would not support any broad statewide or national efforts. These groups are lobbyists with an agenda at loggerheads with what I believe is correct. It is too bad, but like so many efforts, they let the extremists in and ruined a good thing.

Rob

Marty, is this an open door to the possibility of bringing a greater sense of partnership and rail related interest which could benefit us more than not sharing? If so.....what do we have to lose?

We've done an admirable job of preventing ourselves from having anywhere near their clout and success. If by working with them we can make the trails more rail centric.....it's a minor victory but better than the nothing we're otherwise going to get anyhow. If enough trail people start to get interested in the railroad history of the grade they are walking, it may incline them more favorably towards us as a whole, and if nothing else they may be more likely to visit our museums and tourist lines to see what it was like.

In general, I'm usually on the side of cooperation with groups that we could share something with especially if they have a lot more resources and clout than I do.

From a practical perspective......how many of the lines which have been converted had a snowball's chance in hell of not being lost with or without trail conversion? Trains stopped running on them when there was no economic reason to run them, not because we needed more places to walk more than ways to cost effectively move bulk freight. If there's a real well supported economic reason why tourism through rail operation makes more sense, it's up to us to sell it and make it work or we will lose it, trails or not. If we fail by such things as not performing our contractual commitments.....again, our fault, nobody elses. Admit our failure, learn from it and do better the next time.

Reckon we've perhaps lost opportunities to share old grades because we're too stubborn to work with trail groups?

dave

I think this applies;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIcnBccjgMw

Probably rails to trails saves a roadbed from commercial encroachment for possible future rail use.

What I don't want to see is Rails to Trails trying to take out existing track.

The public needs to know, good,bad or ugly, despite anybody's viewpoint.

it makes wonder how some may be funded under the table thru auto industry but I have to use raw guts it does save the ROW.

Indicated in your post is that this is funded by a grant. Ask for a copy of the grant documents so you know where and how your pictures are to be used.

Possibly ask to see and approve final copy of how the pictures are to be used, such as in ads or posters, etc.

Indicate in your credit line that the use of the pictures does not necessarily support fully the Rails to Trails mission.

Ask for a copy of the RtT mission statement and see how that justifies what they are doing with this grant.

Try to verify the use and explain to the person that because you are on a rail trail board, that RtT does not support that endeavor and what your goal and purpose was. Because I know RtT looks at the word "abandoned" railroad road to be any railroad line out there, even ones that museums are operating on, and most of the time, it is the locals supporting the trail endeavor and not RtT.

Marty,

Whatever battles are waged over the RTT versus preservation movement over old right of ways, I don’t think that refusing them historical information would help defeat any of their advances against preserving a railroad for use. But what it might do is give trail users a broader perspective about the original context of the roadbed. I sense that many of them have a genuine interest and curiosity about the railroad history. And in the big picture, this broader perspective might work in favor of the rail preservation interests to some extent. So, I would work with them on their request.

However, I would want to be in complete control of how they present my historical material on their site. My sense is that the people running these trails are not interested in railroad history, or any history. They only view the provision of trail history as a modern trail amenity like a bench or a trash can. So, if left on their own to convey your historical data, I suspect you will be disappointed in how they present it. The actual trail users won’t know the difference if the presentation is inaccurate, shallow, and tacky. But if you control the presentation, with quality, accuracy, and meaning, trail users will realize it and appreciate it.

My first thought would be to end the letter with, "...and the horse you rode in on," but that probably wouldn't be all that nice.Your first answer here, to me, is the best. I agree with Richard fully and feel his is an excellent response to give them.