If there is a selloff at Pine Creek, we should probably try to get ahead of it... What's in the Pine Creek collection that's historically significant? It probably wouldn't hurt to start getting plans together now so we can be ahead of the curve.

You mean, besides moving to Maine?

Yours is a simple straightforward question about a complex and difficult challenge. There are no easy answers. I certainly do not have any. Some suggestions for a few initial steps:

1. Start with a clean slate. As Mr. Rowland pointed out, the NJ RR Historical Commission he was a member of in the mid 90's had as its mission the establishment of a NJ Transportation Heritage Center. In this, it failed miserably. Revisiting the particulars is of no constructive use other than to conclude that a different approach is needed.
2. Discard any proposals which, at their core, are an attempt to "sell" one site over another, such as Mr. McKelvey's ideas regarding Grace Lord Park in Boonton.
3. Define the collection. Over the years a lot has been saved - buses, interurbans, trolleys, motive power, passenger cars, and rolling stock - but what should be preserved?
4. Once the collection is defined, the "owners" of the artifacts in the collection must take their ownership mentality, like that of the "PA" in Port Arthur, TX, and discard it and adopt a stewardship mentality, like that of the "PA" in Prince Albert, BC. This is necessary because NJ is a sizable state with significant traffic issues and so people have to accept that, no matter where the collection winds up, someone is going to be an appreciable drive from "their" equipment.
5. Fully discuss the three siting possibilities for a sustainable preservation plan and the benefits and deficiencies of each. The three options are:
a. Create a network of associated smaller sites to house and display small segments of the collection.
b. Go for one large site that houses and displays all of the equipment.
c. A hybrid of (a) and (b) in which there is one larger "mothership" site and several smaller satellite sites.
6. Once a siting option has been selected, create a weighted criteria for the desired site or sites such that each site is evaluated based on the same agreed-to criteria.
7. Perform a broad site search across the state and eliminate all but the top two or three scoring properties from further consideration.

This should be all about building consensus and a critical mass in order to provide the best preservation future for the artifacts and not about Daffy Duck's "Down, down, down. Go, go, go, It's all mine, mine, mine".

May I suggest the Pine Creek's possible demise be separated from the URHS equipment discussion into it's own thread?

At this point, I see no reason to separate the Pine Creek discussion from the greater NJ discussion. There is a lot of NJ history resident at Pine Creek, especially in the form of historic buildings, small artifacts, rolling stock, and locomotives. Its also a tremendous physical facility to include the small and large shop buildings, car barn, and equipment building. Depending on what happens with Pine Creek, how might this overall facility fit into the bigger NJ picture?

I have always like the idea of satellite museums versus the one big one. The land occupied by Pine Creek could be a cornerstone in this concept.

I was surprised to learn that the Pine Creek museum owns 6 steam locomotives (7 if you include the little 1923 Cagney). Most are 36" inch gauge (unless noted). None appear to have been operational for quite some time.

Ely-Thomas Lumber Co. No. 6, Lima Shay-2 truck, 1927.
http://steamlocomotive.info/vlocomotive.cfm?Display=847

Cavan & Leitrim Railway No. 3 'Lady Edith,' Robert Stephenson & Co. 4-4-0T, 1887. (From Ireland).
It sounds like this locomotive will be going back to Ireland.
http://steamlocomotive.info/vlocomotive.cfm?Display=850

Chiriqui Land Co. No. 46, H.K. Porter 2-6-0, 1914. (Supposedly under restoration).
http://steamlocomotive.info/vlocomotive.cfm?Display=851

Surrey, Sussex & Southampton RR No. 26, Baldwin 2-6-2, 1920.
http://steamlocomotive.info/vlocomotive.cfm?Display=852

Raritan Copper Works No. 9, H.K. Porter 0-4-0T, 1924. (30" gauge).
http://steamlocomotive.info/vlocomotive ... splay=1767

Carroll Park & Western No. 17, Vulcan 0-4-0, 1925. (48" gauge).
http://steamlocomotive.info/vlocomotive ... splay=1729

Do not forget that the NJ Museum of Transportation was also granted custody of the two sunken Civil War-era Planet Class 2-2-2 locomotives off the coast of New Jersey.

Your mentioning the two planet class locos in the drink off NJ bring up some thoughts.
It's great to collect all these locomotives, but everyone of them should be stored under cover, preferably indoors, and to operate any, remember the costly 1472 that is required. As far as the two in the Atlantic go, these are no just railroad displays in my opinion. They have to go into immersion tanks, be treated for the salt they've absorbed, and carefully cleaned by qualified specialists. Just putting them on display, saying here are what two old locomotives look like, is almost criminal.

Thanks for the kind thoughts, Scranton, but moving them to Maine is not on our dance card! :-)

With the sole exception of cosmetically improved Carroll Park & Western No. 17 (on static display outside), all of the listed locomotives are under cover safe from the elements. To be specific Raritan Copper Works No. 9 is in a separate bay of the storage barn that doesn't have any doors, Shay #6, 2-6-2 #26 and Lady Edith are all safe in the car storage barn. #46 is still in pieces in the shop, but again undercover.

I agree most or all of these locomotives would be better served at other homes, but with so many locomotives that are not undercover they could also be in worse places.

This topic is for the URHS/NJ transportation Heritage Museum not the Pine Creek Railroad/New Jersey Museum of Transportation. Both organizations have had problems but they are different problems. It is important to talk about Pine Creek on RYPN but I agree that it needs its own topic.

Black River & Western/BRRHT, NYS&W, Whippany railway museum, and the tri-state guys have all shown that railroad preservation can work in New Jersey. At least it can work if you are not wrapped up in state politics.

Any project that involves crossing a major river with a brand new bridge is going to be in debt for a half a million dollars while they study the idea, and then for several million as the build it over 5-10 years.

Instead, how 'bout Toms River? Located 1 hr from Trenton and 1:15 from Newark, there is 5 miles of intact, out of service track existing between the Wal-Mart and the Lakehurst Post Office. A large vacant industrial area exists a quarter mile north of the Wal-Mart.

Merging the Narrow Gauge tourist railroad (which is 20 minutes away from Toms River) with the Standard Gauge museum would be one way to get started. By combining resources, this could be a path to survival for both organizations, including operating steam trains sooner than later.

Or, pick another location:
http://www.abandonedrails.com/New_Jersey

Olin -

Lakehurst, New Jersey was the location of the U.S. Navy's dirigible site and where the German zeppelin "Hindenburg" caught fire in 1937. Surprisingly, the Navy actually had an interesting rail operation used for their fleet of airships, and for "visitors". The motive power were small diesel locomotives as I recall (Porters perhaps?) as steam or straight electrics could not be used around the flammable airships. I am not sure if the Navy railroad was standard or narrow gauge. Anyway, a "tie in" for a New Jersey rail museum at that location, is not unreasonable.

Les

Richard, as far as the Pine Creek is concerned they don’t have to worry about a 1472 inspection as they are not an FRA operation. They come under the New Jersey Department of Labor inspection laws as they are an insular operation.

Keith

As an aside on this subject, there is a photo of the Graf Zepplin in the hangar next to the Macon. In between is a little gas/electric locomotive. I forget what make it is but this loco is sitting at Wades in Atco sinking slowly but surely into the mud. It sits in the front yard.

Later!
Mr. Ed

Mr. Ed -

While weeding out some of my old magazines, I found a story in issue #123 of THE SHORT LINE on "The Dirigible Road". The two and a half page article by John J. Hilton is very interesting and explains operations at the Naval Air Station at Lakehurst. To much to retype here, but I can report that the gas-electric unit used to move the mooring tower around was built by Plymouth, a 35-ton Type-2 Model ML. The builders number was 3668 and it was delivered in January 1932. There was also some power provided by Porter for the Yaw Anchor Cars. These weighed a whopping 132 tons and are described as an 0-8-0 with its wheels operated via a jackshaft and drive rods with a simple operators platform sans cab. There are two photos accompanying the TSL story, one of which was taken from a plane overhead showing the dirigible Los Angeles moored to the mooring tower and showing the trackwork around the mooring site and into the dirigible hanger. The second photo shows the bottom of the mooring tower itself with the Plymouth connected to it for its movement. If this is of interest anyone, I recommend trying to find a copy of this particular issue of the magazine which was published about 1994.

Les

The Lakehurst Plymouth is a poster child of an item that really needs someone to step forward and give it a proper home. The owners are perfectly willing to sell it, but they want real money for it, although I did not feel the price was out of line. Its a heavy locomotive and they want every penny they can get for it.

Key to me is that it is a time capsule right down to the air whistle and Plymouth marked gauges in the cab. Wheels are shot and the cab/hoods are poor as well. Having such an item in a museum collection, with the Hindenberg connection, gives a lowly Plymouth a good story to tell.

Which brings the thread full circle back to the dilemma outlined by the OP.

Especially since the utility of the airship is again being recognized and the next chapter in the history of the airship is about to begin:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-10/china-s-hoping-airships-will-revolutionize-air-transport

JR May wrote:
The Lakehurst Plymouth is a poster child of an item that really needs someone to step forward and give it a proper home.

What is the definition of "real money"? How much do they want for it?