After reading the response to the thred on Southern Business Car # 10, it made me do some thinking . I recall this car operating as a "private car" some years back, under the name "Susan Marie" as defined on the IRM website. I recall seeing the car under private ownership, and I operate under an assumption that this car was donated to the IRM. Certainly every museum has its priorities, and I would likely imagine that IRM, with such a large collection, must have logical thinking behind which items require full attention, maintenance or are left alone.

I was curious as to the circumstances of cars that get donated, and if under any circumstances, owners have left a plan for the cars future or perhaps some " maintenance fund ", for long term preservation of the car.

Personally I have been to many of the larger and smaller museum's around the country, and I do presently own a a heavyweight operational car, yet I look around and wonder about the future of many of these 80-90 year old objects and if there are any "common" approaches that museums have to accepting a donation, or on the opposite side of the coin, selling off an object where it is known that funds, time, etc will not be available to ever properly protect a car from exposure, time etc. I raise the question, as I remember many years ago, at AAPRCO conventions, the heavyweight platform car dominated the scene, yet today, the lightweight cars dominate the scene, as heavyweights now approaching 80 and 90 years old are aging ( as are many of their owners )

I realize there is not one answer to the approach of preservation, restoration or "hold and wait for funds." Yet I wonder, in this small industry, is enough done for an example to see that a Southern Business Car per say would go to Spencer ( perhaps where an example does not exist ), in exchange for "something " or cash for a project that is more worthy for a "midwest museum". I realize there are 1000's of examples from GG1's in Texas to PRR cars on the west coast. Thats really not the debate. The question is, where an object does not per say "fit" into the long term plans, would it not be better to raise money for the restoration of other items that do "fit", then to hold items, with no long term preservation goals. This is certainly not about IRM, as I believe they do an outstanding job, its more of a "industry" question. It could apply to any railroad museum or NRHS chapter, from east to west coast.

On a side note, I am looking for a complete "heavyweight" car, not something that was in M&W service, to return to operation. I am likely aware of most cars that are available for sale publically, and wonder if any museum and or non profit NRHS chapter, etc has a complete car that does not "fit" the future plans for the organization.

I welcome thoughts and feedback. Its an interesting subject !

Interesting Idea, I used this same view back in 1998 when I approached the Virginia Museum of Transportation and offered to buy a piece of there collection. Museum funds are tight, I offered to purchase one of two Southern Heavyweight Pullman Sleepers in there collection, offering to buy the car needing more attention while the other car being more desirable to the museum a deal was struck. The Museum was able to down size there collection, added needed funds for restoration on higher priority projects and gave the second Pullman a chance at restoration and needed attention. As a note this car was a 3-6 Southern sleeper still as built and untouched by the MofW "bug". This is an example of what you’re talking about put to practice. I for one am working to get more Heavyweight cars back out and moving let alone making sure that sustained preventive maintenance is given to those that are still out there so they are around for years to come.

And therein lies the rub.

There are two polarly opposite reactions to the sale of the SR sleeper by the Va. museum.

Hardened, dirt-under-the-fingernails preservationists: "Wow, what a win-win situation. Sell off the surplus sleeper, get funds to restore the one you keep, lets another example roll on the rails and show off the glory of old-time passenger travel, without putting that burden upon the museum! A positive outcome all around!"

"Academic" museum professionals: "That is a troubling practice; at best, it's a bad precedent to convert museum artifacts for money, and not deaccession them to another museum; at worst it's an unethical breach of museum protocol and ethics to sell off artifacts that were intended for preservation."

Perhaps I exaggerate the latter a bit--after all, I know nothing about the Va. Museum of Transportation's charter, codes of practices, etc.--but there do seem times when "common sense" does seem to fall victim to protocol.

As another example, I know of a railroad museum operation that managed to snatch from the scrap line no fewer than FIVE semi-complete Pullman day coaches--a car that I really do not see in preservation at the appropriate places (like Strasburg, Steamtown, etc.). Based on my examination of these cars, the best plan possible would be for a museum or group to make a motion to acquire all five cars, cannibalize all five for the parts to restore two cars as Pullman day coaches and stuff those as static exhibits, and gut the other three for custom coach or PV use, returning one to the fledgling museum for their own use as partial repayment.

Will it ever happen? Ha ha ha ha ha. No one else seems willing to think that far ahead or that big. The museum seems interested, but has been "landlocked" by a bridge failure. There are ways to get those cars out--it's VERY close to an interstate highway, and trucking is a realistic possibility. There's also 2-3 shops within local-freight distance that could handle preliminary truck rebuild, etc.

Any takers?

Yes they’re many different ways preservation can be handled as for which one is more correct than the other purely depends on the circumstances. The Southern sleeper has not been PV’ed or been changed from it's original layout, With this car having Friction Bearings and having an out dated brake system and most everything else the local railroad didn't want to have anything to do with, I was one the only ones willing to work to save this car from slow and certain death. I agree with you should the car have been traded to Spencer or another museum of the region? Who knows right now Spencer for example has a back lot full of prospective heavyweight cars projects, that will in due time receive their attention. Where there any other museums willing to step up and speak to save this piece of equipment when most of there attention is directed at taking care of what they already have. I for one look first to do the right thing for a piece of equipment, which takes me back to a Norfolk Southern Auction in the mid 90's. I was looking for new projects and placed a bid on some Heavyweight equipment up for auction in Roanoke VA. One of the items I won was the NKP diner that is now in Bellevue Ohio. Rather than "Chop" up this car as it was still in a diner configuration I worked out a deal to return it to where it came from historically. Like wise we have done the same for a CofG coach. Any cars that have any hopes of returning to their glory days are not considered prospects for PV Projects.
I guess I have tried to do what was best for the equipment, and at times do I wish all organizations could work together so that all equipment would receive its allotted attention and what one would hope would be a relevant location and context. But some times that’s not happening and a decision must be made on whether or not to step in.

No, there's a third response:

Dewey-eyed foamer museum member: "But they're different! They have different colored upholstery. We need to keep both! And, six more to illustrate the other colors."

I hate to be the one to point this out, but since no one else has in these various threads about the future of railway museums, I will; there are too many pieces of equipment "saved". There are already many, many more pieces of equipment in collections than can realistically be maintained, and some organizations are having a difficult time showing any restraint. New cool stuff comes in the front door while the cool stuff that has aged a sufficient amount to become worthless goes out the back door as scrap. This does tend to ultimately limit the amount of equipment in the collection, but in no way does it ensure that the most significant pieces get the attention and funds that they need, and tends to keep the overall level of the collection looking like it's all candidates for the scrapper.

When I first became active in railway preservation in 1970, the goals were pretty clear cut, at least to my mind. Interurban railways were extinct, and street railways almost so; steam was long gone. There were only going to be a few more opportunities to collect new pieces of equipment, and then attention could be turned toward housing it, and then all the resources could be applied to conserving, restoring, and interpreting it. Instead, because all that stuff is old and uninteresting, a continuous stream of new toys had to be found. The organization I speak of is now just one generation behind the cutting edge of technology, with items newly retired being immediately acquired. Why? Because of the lack of any coherent collections policy.

Just about any potential acquisition can be justified as being "significant" in some context; "it's the first", "it's the last of it's kind", "it's unique", "it's typical of so many", and my favorite, "they always ran in eight car trains." The problem is, without a clearly defined collection, and a clear vision of what story the museum is trying to tell, there is no way to judge if any given piece is SIGNIFICANT TO THE COLLECTION. Instead, we just keep on gathering them in, and let rust and rot make the decisions for us.

The basic problem with the argument that we have to save it and future generations can restore it is, in a nutshell, they won't care. If we haven't had the wisdom and made the decision to save only the pieces that can tell a story that is recognizable and important to the public at large, the funding will never be there to preserve any of it, and we've just been spinning our wheels in the meantime.

Fortunately for most of us, "Dewey" can usually be (and often is, thankfully) ignored, or at least not be allowed anywhere near the board of directors or the acquisitions committee. At worst, he can be handed a wire brush and be forced to scrape down all six cars before they are allowed on the interchange track, or taken out back behind the coal shed and beaten into submission with air hoses until he "sees" the error of his ways if necessary. >;-)

The problems become when Grizzled Preservationist (or hardened business-type) clashes with Academic Bureaucrat. Or when Museum A has all the credentials but can't make or allow something to happen because of regulations or bureaucracy, while Museum B plows ahead almost bull-headedly but finds a way to make something happen.

I'm currently looking at a well-crafted proposal to restore some rolling stock and work in conjunction with a well-known museum/excursion operation to offer what can only be described as a "complementary" service/opportunity that would not compete with the current operation, and indeed would actually complement the official goals of the museum/operation far more than said organization has been able to do thus far. (Just to make up an example, say they want to bring back a steam locomotive that used to run on the line/RR, and replace the oddball GP9 currently pulling the train.) Interestingly enough in this case, every party that can have a say in the matter--every owner, the host RR, a multitude of other bureaucracies, the town, etc.--has given their blessing and support. But the museum/operation has thus far not replied in any fashion to the overtures--and I suspect it's a combination of "not invented here" and bureaucracy.

I'm also well acquainted with one private "shut up and make it happen" preservationist who is getting QUITE peeved, if not outright disgusted, with the complaints by and demands of the multitudes of "Deweys" on online bulletin boards, etc., complaining because, oh, the locomotive wasn't painted the "right way", or they haven't used the steamer in so long, or they didn't inform the general population before taking their cars out on Amtrak or whatever. The fellow in question seems to be getting closer and closer to a salty sailor in appropriate language describing these know-it-alls every time I correspond with him, and I personally expect him to turn into the next reclusive "Railfans Not Allowed" collector a la a certain Baldwin-owning party in the Upper Midwest. Well, maybe not, but not that I would blame him..........

This has been a problem that I have been considering for about 10 years now. Passenger cars are arguably the most complex items to preserve, as they are very complex mechanically, their original mechanical equipment is rapidly becoming unservicable, and they are very succeptable to rust and mold. The important thing to realize, and the point that is most often missed, is that passenger cars are a bit like a technological time capsule. A complete, untouched passenger car has elements of state of the art industrial design, interior decor, and mechanical systems. Unfortunately, preservationists, in placing such a high priority on putting cars back on the road, have modified or destroyed all three elements. So many restored cars that operate in museums or excursion service have traces of all three elements melded with modern technolgy and design tastes, with the result is that it is different to distinguish what is what.

That is not to say that operating passenger cars does not have value. It has tremendous educational value and it is fun. However, we also have to ask ourselves (as a movement) how many passenger cars do we need to have in operational condition? How often will there be a realistic time to operate such cars? Where will the car be in 10, 20, 50 years? Will anybody care about it then?

Arguably, there are enough cars already out there that can satisfy the demand for operational cars. The vast majority of which have largely sat idle for much of the past decade.

So, lets take "operational" off the drawing board for the cars that haven't been modified yet - and instead focus on how to conserve the cars that remain largely untouched. This is not to say that conservation means that the car can never be operated, just that it would be operated only on rare occassions and in limited service (think the B&O Museum's William Mason vs. Milwaukee Road 261). Lets also place a high value on conserving original fabric and documenting any changes that are made in the restoration and conservation process. Finally, lets recongnize the importance of "other" operations - such as Amtrak, public commuter operations, and maintenance of way service. All have their own stories and are important in their own respects.

The MOST important thing that we can do is to put passenger cars inside. Passenger cars do not last long outside. However, as much of the rust and rot occurs internally, the damage won't become visible until it is well progressed. Placing a car inside buys time, which can be used to construct a feasabile restoration plan and locate the funds to make it possible.

BR 60102 mentioned John Larkin of the Escanaba and Lake Superior. Besides the famous Baldwins, he has also preserved a near complete Soo Line heavyweight passenger train (look in the Interchange archives for details). Keeping this train undercover but intact has created a large time capsule of the last heavyweight train to operate in the US. For comparison, consider the story of the Maria Elena. It went from the Soo Line to operate in San Diego and Mexico. While it operated for a number of years, at last report it is sitting in Benjamin Hil, MX slowly being vandalized. http://www.sdrm.org/roster/passenger/sl-1257/

While our gut reaction may disfavor conserving equipment it helps to save its value for another day when there will be a greater appreciation for it.

Tom Cornillie

Yes, I'd say that's an exaggeration.

The bright-line ethical rule on deaccessioning is that funds from the sale of deaccessioned objects should be used only for new aquisitions, or for the direct care of collections. They are not to be used for general operating support, funding the director's salary, paving the parking lot, etc.

As long as this standard is observed, and the sale is arm's-length (i.e., not to an insider), and for fair market value, then deaccessioning is an accepted part of museum practice. Used wisely, it makes for stronger collections and better collections care.

This subject matter is certainly an interesting one, and has tremendous merit and can be looked at no different than looking at two sides of the same coin. I have witnessed ( as likely many of the readers on this forum ), dozens of cars ( specifically for this conversation passenger cars ) that languish outdoors for years and years, with little to no effort put to stabilize the car yet alone restore it. I am the first one to say, the owner has a right to do as he or she deems fit, yet as a museum or NRHS chapter, I believe some level of accountability exists on how and why a piece of equipment is part of the "message" that a museum attempts to convey to its guests and members.

I for one have seen countless cars at museums, and or owned by NRHS chapters that have seen no efforts to even stabilize the equipment. However if another random car was made available, most groups "jump", on the opportunity to obtain it, while their existing equipment languishes.

I welcome seeing museums such as Altoona or the Golden Gate Railroad Museum, finally come to the conclusion that dozens of cars, that are decaying at a rapid base, offers little to the message or future of an organization. I for one thought it best for those managing the Altoona museum in Pennsylvania, to see fit to either transfer cars to the NRHS, or outright sell equipment or donate equipment such as a PRR Pullman business car, a solarium Pullman car, a B60 baggage car, a 1950 era sleeper named Nicholas Firestone, a P70, and most recently a wooden Fruit Growers Express Car, a Baldwin switcher etc. Personally, viewing this equipment in Altoona was hard on the eyes, yet I believe each piece that left, likely has a better future ahead of it. This is not intended to insult those from Altoona, it is praise that they acknowledged that it is time to focus on a smaller more define collection. I expect the same is now true for those running the GGRM and perhaps other institutions throughout the country. I greatly respect the Western Pacific Museum in Portola, for its well define mission, and its ability to trade and negotiate with its western museum partners in better moving equipment around that works for multiple institutions.

Hey, I realize one mans trash is another mans treasure, yet I am a beleiver just like historic properties that are endangered, that we as a group, have so much equipment that is endangered, that if individuals, NRHS chapters, museums worked together, it would stop this endangered list from growing, and likely allow groups or museums to better focus on its core collection.

No answer will work in every application, and I for one believe that too much equipment fills the back lots of museums and sidings, waiting for its day to meet the scrapper. No matter if its E-8's in the Carolina's, or GG1's in Cooperstown, NY or Pullman's in California, that unless those that manage or own, accept the responsibility that comes with ownership, then things we take for granted today, likely 20 years from now, will be beyond the reasonable ability to be restored. Responsibility comes with ownership, no matter if its a home, a vehicle or a railroad car. I believe that neglect is a failure in responsibility, and should come with some level of accountability. I guess in short, if you can't preserve it, can't restore it, and it doesn't lend itself to a positive image of an association, museum etc, why not move it, and utilize the money for the core collection.

Honestly, either too much stuff is still around ( which I don't think so ), or we need to redefine responsibility when it comes to ownership. There is no reason to go to any major museum or siding controlled by an NRHS group, and see dozens and dozens of cars and equipment, with little to no effort being put forth to preserve them.

I believe its time to either fund raise, or re-define the goals or mission of many institutions, as 75- 100 year old steel objects require constant attention and plans for continued maintenance.

Thoughts are welcomed !

I'm going to take a "bold" position to the above post. I think is too much stuff "preserved" by museums, at least certain categories are overrepresented, and thus leads to neglect. Business cars, saddle tank steam switchers, Milwaukee Road reefers, South Shore interurban cars, Philadelphia/SEPTA PCC cars, and other types of equipment too numerous to list are available in hordes at just about every museum in any state of the union. All of this goes back to the fact that most railroad museums did not engage in any kind of professional collections management for many years. Since the early museums were offshoots of NRHS, RLHS, and other fan groups, they collected what they wanted, from about wherever they wanted, and thus leads to the hodgepodge collections you see at some museums today. In one respect, as railroad preservation enters into its third or fourth generations, we are paying for the sins of those who preceded us.

To complicate matters, when some museums take the bold approach and try to downsize the collection, sometimes the membership can get into the way. Just see the other post on the Ohio Railway Museum. There, the board has made the decision that certain pieces of equipment don't really fit into the mission of the museum, so they've found suitable and responsible caretakers for them. The museum is trying to do the right thing by sending the 578 to the OC and the Pullman cars to Dennison, but you have members threatening to chain themselves to the equipment if they try to get rid of it. Granted it is probably hyperbole, but it demonstrates one of the problems museum management faces.

Also, what constitutes neglect as stated by PLATFORMCAR? The previously discussed Southern #10 business car at IRM is under cover, in storage. It doesn't look great, but under a roof in a building, it isn't going to get any worse. From what I know about IRM's fundraising, it appears that at least at some point in the car's history at IRM a donor met the track storage and coverage costs for the car. This is in my view, eminently responsible.

This all harkens back to a time when I was temporarily appointed to the board of directors at a museum where I formally lived near and volunteered with. The museum owned an E unit, donated about 30 years ago by a local railroad. The unit was in bad shape, the railroad had stripped it of most useful parts. It was significant, as it was only the second E unit of its type around one of only a handful of prewar E units around. Another preservation organization in the same state approached the board with a plan for our museum to enter into an agreement where they would take a long term custodial possession of the unit, cosmetically restore it, and display it. The only counter plan members of the board came up with was that EMD would magically come and pay for the complete rehabilitation of the unit. Another board member said that it wouldn’t get worse, and we should just do nothing with it in the meantime. I pointed out that we owed a responsibility to the artifact and that if the best future was somewhere else, then we needed to let the other organization have it, as the responsibility to preserve it was the greatest responsibility. The deal never happened, the locomotive sits out of public view rusting away, and I left for law school. I doubt my experience is unique but it does demonstrate a valid point.

Quick comment.. Regarding Southern # 10, I only based my observation from the photograph of the car on the museum grounds outdoors. I was never critical of IRM, more so curious, as to how priorities are set. In my opinion IRM does a fantastic job with their equipment and should be praised for their unique collection, and the preservation and operation of each and every car that they outshop.

Seems like they have a systematic approach to what goes in the shop, more so curious as to how a museum with such a large collection decides if locomotives, freight cars or passenger cars, trolleys etc make it in to the restoration shop, and if when a item is donated, does an endowment ever come with a piece of equipment to preserve it in the future, either from an individual or a company like UP, BNSF etc etc.

Like the Museum of Transport in St. Louis, CSRM, PA State RR Museum etc, it has been great to see more items go indoors, as that certainly does for the most part guarantee a secure future.

Picking up on the Heritage Railroad thread (read the magazine cover to cover), we here in the US have no lock on Mr. Dewey. The UK has a major controversy over the Flying Sctosman paint and form, and more "never were" paint schemes and "almost were" replicas using parts of other locos are causing quite a buzz.

All I can say is, Mr. Dewey is the reason that a lot of pieces have survived to the point where Mr. Serious can take over. Not all of Mr. Dewey's actions can be relegated to paint scraping and potato peeling (in a Pullman kitchen, of course). After all, was Mr. Blount really more of a Mr. Dewey? What would we be missing today had this one man been nothing but a Mr. Serious? Might there not be an appropriate place for both?

And that's not to mention Mr. Esoteric. He's really the guy who wants to save the Pullmans based on upholstery colors. What he needs is a Mr. Serious as a partner.

If we set up Mr. Dewey, Mr. Serious and Mr. Esoteric as enemies, we might as well all go home, as we have just taken an already tiny community of interests and broken it down into even smaller bickering factions.

I always think of Mark Smith and his pleas for unification. I read threads like this and I wonder if that can ever happen.

Food for thought...

Rob

I have been lurking in the wings on this thread and noting that the centerpiece generating this and another thread has been the Susan Marie.

While in many respects many of our museum operations need to move to a more business like model, it is hard to reconcile with a long and inbred volunteer history.

Folks come to IRM and may see our first car out and operating - and marvel that there was the foresight to save a trolley form the Indiana Railroad! Well, there probably was not so much foresight as the willingness for ten guys to toss some bucks in a hat, get it, and see what developed.

The same can be said about most if not all the early (and later?) acquisitions at IRM. In general, maybe not consciously, stuff is acquired, and hopefully conserved and stabilized, waiting for the day when it can be fully restored and displayed. Without that blind faith in the future, many collections now existing around the country would not have been possible. If someone does not step forward at the window of opportunity, you cannot go back ten years later and get something.

You may not believe it, but there are an unbelievable volume of potential acquitions coming before the organization on an almost continuing basis. Some are 'what if' ideas, some are more realistic, and the vast majority are not pursued, after considering resources, significance, feasibility, need, and all the other factors.

True, not all acquisitions carry the same significance, and some of these will fall by the wayside, victims of neglect or indifference. Or, just in such very bad shape when acquired, that scarce resources be devoted to more feasible projects.

Many items have come and gone at IRM and I assume that trend will continue at some level. As to the Susan Marie, it is under roof, out of the weather. What needs to happen is a wheelbarrow full of money, or someone (or more than one) wanting to do the work, or both.

Like it or not, sponsors and workers often determine the priority of a project getting done - you can argue significance and worthiness. But then put your money where your mouth is.

At IRM we have built and occupied two additional buildings last year, 2005, and I for one continue to try to promote additional shelter to allow pieces to be conserved and stabilized, to arrest perhaps 95% of the deterioration caused by exposure to the elements.

Who is to say that an E unit acquired today will not be revered in the same way 50 years from now, that old IRR 65 is today?

Bob Kutella

Bob... thank you for your comments about some of the inner workings at IRM. You and your group are to be commended for your efforts in preservation, and quality of work your shop performs.

Like you said, although the initial discussion came up regarding the Susan Marie, it could be said for any donated item, no matter if its a tank car at your museum or a PCC car.

Over the years, I have watched items in private hands along with large railroads, donate equipment and became curious as to if a donation ever comes with an endowment to preserve and maintain it. Although it likely seems like a hard thing to think about, I wonder if in the case of XYZ business car, after an owner died and the family says " what should we do with this ??", upon accepting a donation, does a museum ever contemplate an endowment from a family, or corporation to maintain it ( perhaps in exchange for a visiable acknowledgement on a plaque out in front of the locomotive or car etc etc... Such as "Donated and Preserved under agreement from the Union Pacific Corporation".. or " Donated and maintained in memory of the ..... family"

As a heavyweight car owner, and someone who recently completed some estate planning, my thoughts went to " what happens to this thing after I am not here, or unable to maintain it", and my thoughts were many. First thought, the car should go to a well managed ( proven ) institution under the strict provision the car is stored indoors, and second, the car should have a endowment from my estate, to ensure its maintenance and proper future.

Now I know its thinking ahead and outside of the normal "preservation" topic, however I can name plenty of cars that 20 years ago attended AAPRCO conventions, yet today sit uncared for, as an example the passing of the original car owner, and a family who knew not what to do with it etc.

I realize this is not a conversation that per say requires a specific answer, yet, it is sure nice to see preservation done correctly today, and maintained in the future. Example, who can not be impressed, walking into the CSRM and seeing the Gold Coast ( which I believe is lettered Georgia Northern ), sitting on a display floor in a climate controlled environment, or the Western Maryland Business Car at the RR Museum of Pennsylvania, or as a example, the Lotus Club at the RR Museum of PA, which was privately owned, and now is a prize item inside ?

Your answer of labor and money, is perfectly true for perhaps which projects get the green signal, and which ones stay under the shed. It is just interesting to better understand how preservation is considered from looking at it from the perspective of a museum, along with the eyes of private ownership.

Some disconnected thoughts about this topic.

1. None of us really knows how much stuff is out there in museums, and along forgotton sidings owned by groups or people with the best intentions gone wrong. While not likely to happen, it would be nice if there was a national passenger car list. From a non-scientific review, it sure looks to me like 90% of the business cars out thee still exist while you would be hard pressed to find many tourist sleepers.

2. A month doesn't go by without someone contacting us looking to sell or donate or trade something to us. I have to assume this happens to every museum or preservation group. Even if your group has a mission and an acquisition policy in place it is easy to be tempted and "save" something else. In our group, I am usually the one that asks "Why?" or says it doesn't fit our mission.

3. As someone else said, we are all dealing with the cards previous generations dealt us. A lot of stuff was saved because someone took a personal interest in it and saved it. A lot of stuff survived because it was useful for something beyond its original intended purpose - baggage cars used in MOW service for example.

4. People saving equipment belong to a lot of different organizations and there are no uniform standards or practices. Just because the Western Pacific museum has a focus and a mission puts no pressure on having GG1s in Cooperstown, NY.

I think the fact that this web site exists and has the number of visitors it has represents the best hope for preservation. Many of us take what we learn here and spread the word to our own groups. Maybe getting those who need to make some hard decisions about their equipment should be urged to spend a few months reading the articles, briefs and posts at RYPN.