Railway Preservation News :: View topic - TRAIN/ARM Joint Co-operation

STRASBURG, Pa. — The Association of Railway Museums and the Tourist Railway Association Inc. will cooperate in publications, meetings, and other areas, the two groups concluded during meetings.

The organizations will combine their newsletters, ARM's Railway Museums Quarterly, and TRAIN's Trainline. They'll hold joint conventions in 2011 in Chattanooga, Tenn., followed by Montreal in 2012. All spring meetings, starting in 2011 in French Lick, Ind., will be joint events. In addition, they agreed to work together on advocacy and regulatory issues as well as parts sourcing.

The presidents of both organizations praised the moves. "We found we had more similarities than differences," said TRAIN President Rick Burchett of the Chehalis-Centralia Railroad in Washington State. "If we work together, we can make progress at an exponential rate," said ARM President Bob LaPrelle, who is also president and CEO of the Museum of the American Railroad in Dallas, Texas.

ARM has 220 member organizations, TRAIN has 186, and 64 belong to both organizations. The two have held joint meetings in 2001 and 2006.

A second very interesting article in the same issue reports on the MAP (Museum Assessment Program) recently requested from the Institute for Museum and Library Services by the Pacific Locomotive Association...

To me, when ARM supports merging with TRAIN, they indicate they are leaning more towards the practical business side and way from concentratiing on the typical AAM-style preference for Museum-specific Process.

Peter, if I understand you right, you liked the WRM MAP report in large part for its "un-AAM like" qualities.

But that's interesting, because MAP is an AAM program, run by AAM staff. IMLS funds it (cuts the check) but AAM does all the program administration and execution. So the un-AAM like report came from an evaluator selected by AAM staff, working in and for an AAM program, published with the full blessing of AAM!

I think AAM is a more nuanced place than you may be giving it credit for being

Author:	Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:53 pm ]
Post subject:	TRAIN/ARM Joint Co-operation
What, so nobody's going to comment on the news out of Strasburg this weekend, even though it made Trains' Newswire at Kalmbach.com? Quote: STRASBURG, Pa. — The Association of Railway Museums and the Tourist Railway Association Inc. will cooperate in publications, meetings, and other areas, the two groups concluded during meetings. The organizations will combine their newsletters, ARM's Railway Museums Quarterly, and TRAIN's Trainline. They'll hold joint conventions in 2011 in Chattanooga, Tenn., followed by Montreal in 2012. All spring meetings, starting in 2011 in French Lick, Ind., will be joint events. In addition, they agreed to work together on advocacy and regulatory issues as well as parts sourcing. The presidents of both organizations praised the moves. "We found we had more similarities than differences," said TRAIN President Rick Burchett of the Chehalis-Centralia Railroad in Washington State. "If we work together, we can make progress at an exponential rate," said ARM President Bob LaPrelle, who is also president and CEO of the Museum of the American Railroad in Dallas, Texas. ARM has 220 member organizations, TRAIN has 186, and 64 belong to both organizations. The two have held joint meetings in 2001 and 2006.

Author:	Dave [ Wed Apr 14, 2010 7:46 am ]
Post subject:	Re: TRAIN/ARM Joint Co-operation
About time and might result in a louder voice and considerable savings, but I have my doubts about "progress at an exponential rate" resulting from a simple merger of two small trade organizations. dave

Author:	Mr. Ed [ Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:44 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: TRAIN/ARM Joint Co-operation
Good news but a direct contradiction to the articles in last issue of ARM. In many of the articles they were talking about the pros and cons but the general concensus was that if was going to happen, it would be in the future. I am glad for the reasons posted above. Cutting costs while strengthening your organization is always a good thing. Later! Mr. Ed

Author:	PJS [ Wed Jun 23, 2010 6:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: TRAIN/ARM Joint Co-operation
Just got my copy of the ARM newletter Railway Museum Quarterly (RMQ). Apparently the consensus of both Boards was to move toward a single completely merged entity with a new name. This sounds like a great idea to me. A second very interesting article in the same issue reports on the MAP (Museum Assessment Program) recently requested from the Institute for Museum and Library Services by the Pacific Locomotive Association. The individual hired to do the assessment is a member of the general museum community with a great deal of specific railroad museum experience. Almost the entire report is presented in RMQ and it is very insightful. Having both subjects in the same issue is particularly interesting. To me, when ARM supports merging with TRAIN, they indicate they are leaning more towards the practical business side and way from concentratiing on the typical AAM-style preference for Museum-specific Process. About 90% of the MAP report makes practical suggestions for improvements and the reasons for considering them. Only about 10% gets into the unique Museum processes that no Tourist Railroad would bother with, and which, in my opinion are only optional. From my point of view this is great news for Railway Museums. BTW, individual supscriptions to RMQ are available, cheap and well worth while.

Author:	PJS [ Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: TRAIN/ARM Joint Co-operation
Looks like TRAIN and ARM really are moving towards greater cooperation. I just got my copy of the first joint newletter and am very impressed. Apparently combining the resources of both organizations works well in this case. The combined newsletter is much longer (36 pages) and much higher quality (quite a few color photographs) than either of its two predecessors. The cover story is on the Minnesota Transportation Museum and is exactly the kind of article I like. It covers the history and current makeup of the organization itself, not just the rolling stock. At least in the past, ARM newletters were available on their web site after some delay. I assume that will continue to be the case? If not individual memberships in ARM are available.

Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/

TRAIN/ARM Joint Co-operation https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29214	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Bobharbison [ Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:02 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: TRAIN/ARM Joint Co-operation
I can't speak for ARM, but the current combined issue and past issues of Trainline can be found here: http://traininc.org/trainline/trainline.html

Author:	Erik Ledbetter [ Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:19 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: TRAIN/ARM Joint Co-operation
PJS wrote: A second very interesting article in the same issue reports on the MAP (Museum Assessment Program) recently requested from the Institute for Museum and Library Services by the Pacific Locomotive Association... To me, when ARM supports merging with TRAIN, they indicate they are leaning more towards the practical business side and way from concentratiing on the typical AAM-style preference for Museum-specific Process. Peter, if I understand you right, you liked the WRM MAP report in large part for its "un-AAM like" qualities. But that's interesting, because MAP is an AAM program, run by AAM staff. IMLS funds it (cuts the check) but AAM does all the program administration and execution. So the un-AAM like report came from an evaluator selected by AAM staff, working in and for an AAM program, published with the full blessing of AAM! I think AAM is a more nuanced place than you may be giving it credit for being. (Full disclosure--I worked at AAM for seven years).

Author:	PJS [ Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: TRAIN/ARM Joint Co-operation
Quote: Peter, if I understand you right, you liked the WRM MAP report in large part for its "un-AAM like" qualities. But that's interesting, because MAP is an AAM program, run by AAM staff. IMLS funds it (cuts the check) but AAM does all the program administration and execution. So the un-AAM like report came from an evaluator selected by AAM staff, working in and for an AAM program, published with the full blessing of AAM! I think AAM is a more nuanced place than you may be giving it credit for being . Eric: Thanks for pointing out the involvement of AAM in the MAP process. Their selection of someone who actually has experience with running a railroad museum to evaluate a railroad museum tells me AAM has gone a long way from the early days of the Museum Accreditation program, where the emphasis was on evaluating Museums almost solely on their formal adoption of a series of policies specific to traditional museums. (Quoting Stephen E. Weil in his book Making Museums Matter, "The Museum as Process was ... the darling of the AAM Accreditation Process."). However the actual reason I liked the WRM MAP report was that it was full of good, practical ideas and suggestions and reasons for considering their adoption, by that specific organization. The report made every effort to avoid quoting "Museum Standards" as such. The real point I was trying to make is that it appears ARM and its members , by considering merger with TRAIN, are leaning more toward concentrating on the practical issues facing what some call "Recreational Railroading" and away from traditional museum-specific concerns and approaches. That appearance is re-inforced by that fact that except for several public sector ones, very very few railroad museums are current members of AAM.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/