The thing is the big boys at IRM and B&O Railroad museum could probably make a few calls and get the ball rolling while a operation like the Old Colony & Fall River Railroad Museum (ever heard of them?) wouldn't stand a chance and it would be nice if they could get that Mc.Donelds car.

All railroad museums go through an evolution.
Phase One: their focus is collecting cars. (Pemberton).
Phase Two: their collection overwhelms them and they shift focus to thrashing around trying to maintain cars outdoors (Long Island).
Phase Three: the weather overwhelms them and they shift focus to getting the proper site for covered storage (Snoqualmie, OERM, NORM).

What I'm saying is -- motivate museums to get into the third phase, by NOT helping them thrash around in the first and second.

And before you say "Well that excludes all the small operations", I can name several with budgets under $75,000 that are in phase 3.

This is a GREAT idea...pure preservation!

Stephen

Splitting it up ($5K and $5K) dilutes it. Virtually every rail preservation project costs in multiples of $10K, and the Trains grant (like a few others) can make a substantial impact on a project.

I think the idea of a matching grant is a good one, but the "most votes" concept is not desirable, in my opinion. The Trains grant program has been successful so far, and if it is simply left alone, it's still one of the best things out there.

While this might constitute "thread drift", it would be nice to see a few more specifically-rail-oriented heritage preservation grants of this magnitude available, perhaps from the rail industry--- supplier groups or even railroads (there, I said "it"). Labor does this through NARF.

Howard P.

I'd like to add one more item to Ed Lecuyer's list: buffer lands. If railway museums don't secure adjacent properties, especially surrounding their yards, barns, etc., they run the risk of being overcome by development which may not include sympathetic neighbors.

I would suggest that, as an alternative, consider projects where the $10,000 will "complete the restoration"....as opposed to just move the ball.

We need more examples of projects that get finished successfully, not just started and keep going. $10,000 won't restore a major piece of equipment or a depot, but it could put one "over the top" and get it finished.

By comparison, there are projects where $10,000, with or without matching funds, will get the project done and "on display" for the public to appreciate and/or ride. Let those submitting their proposals described their resources, their plan, their progress to date and why the $10,000 (or two $5,000 awards) will "finish the job".

Then publish the photos of the finished projects...to inspire the rest of us.

Craig Brinkman
www.arpcp.org

Thanks all, for the feedback. I hear your concerns, and for now, the program will remain as is. As you can imagine, I'd love to find a way to influence a multiplier effect, and I know that at North Carolina Transportation Museum, when we had ISTEA funding for the Roundhouse project in the early 1990s, a four for one match sure was attractive to many donors. I see our colleagues in the UK preservation press often have fund raising "appeals" that they promote. I can't see Trains doing that, but we'd love to continue to be a rallying spot for worthwhile projects.