A party/group with which I am affiliated loosely is looking to fill out the paperwork to nominate a certain railroad property for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Sites. They came to me looking for information and references in regards to placing the history of the property in question in its proper context. (I would not call it a "cinch"--compare this to preserving a station in town when there are already two other stations in town preserved, with one on the Register.) The building is currently used industrially, but no one's expressed any interest in demolition as far as I know.

Does anyone have any resources or recommendations about this process, general and railroad-specific?

I have contributed to a couple of these efforts. The first steps are to familiarize yourself with the bulletins on how to fill the forms out; Get copies of RECENT similar nominations (at least w/in the past ten years); and talk with someone in your state's SHPO office about your specific property. They should be able to suggest other nominations to look at.

Wikipedia has a list of everything on the national register. It is easy to request copies of nomination forms, which in turn are useful for understanding the thinking that lead to these properties' recognition. Beyond the thinking, these forms will provide insight into how much work is involved, the nominees' strategies, and the level of academic-level research expected. It is also worthwhile to recruit someone recognized as a historian in this field to help get your nomination to be taken seriously.

The main thrust of the nomination itself is to demonstrate that the property is worthy of listing both for what it was during it's "period of significance," and the degree to which the property has maintained it's "integrity" to that period. These documents use a number of terms to mean very specific things. The bulletins (available online) do a good job of explaining them.

To give more specific advice, I feel I'd need to know more about the property and what the sponsors feel qualify it for listing.


I wish more organizations would go through with this process as rail equipment and facilities are under represented (except for depots actually), and because I think we would benefit from taking the time understand what makes our stuff "historic" in the eyes of the broader preservation movement.

I would also make sure you have the current property owner's blessing and cooperation in having the property nominated. Having the property nominated may limit their options on what to do with it in the future, though it can also make it eligable for some preservation related funding, so they need to be a part of your attempts to have it nominated.

(I went through the initial efforts to have a building in a distant state nominated; only to have the developer tear it down anyway.)

It can definitely be a two-edged sword, particularly from a practical viewpoint.

If you're looking to qualify for TEA-21/SAFETEA/???? style funding, the key has always been 'eligible' for state (not national) nomination; i.e. the process doesn't necessarily have to be complete at the point of final placement, but subject to a determination by the SHPO. This is a big part of the process for grant elibigility and what tends to drive this.

That being said, it is by no means an end-all solution. It doesn't stop private money from demolition at all; it tends to stall or slow-down publicly-funded demolition or asset removal without a good solid review. We've used it several times to slow down/stop ill-concieved government plans for removal of historic buildings, track, etc.

The price is that getting there puts you in a different league. For instance, lets say you loose a bridge on a line already nominated for significance; now you have to replace a bridge that REALLY could be a box culvert at half the cost. Or repair a bridge, and guess what - the WALKWAYS have to go BACK ON because that's what was on the bridge historically. I've seen SHPO's argue over rail weight, tie size, and even wood species! I have another SHPO that went over air-conditioning upgrade plans on a Pullman with a fine-tooth comb to make sure that none of the ductwork sizes were changing. You can end up spending significant money to preserve things historically that otherwise you really wouldn't bother with.

I'm involved with a depot preservation now (late in the game) where the slate roof is a real arguement; they just want to put a new roof on it that isn't leaking but historically it was slate, and they'd already bid the job out to pay for it by selling the slate they took off! Can you say 'screeching halt!'?

Regarding the above comments, the cooperation of the property owner is very important. The owner must approve of the listing for it to go through. Additionally, many property owners do not understand that listing does not limit their private property rights, and may even move to destroy it in order to head off what they assume will amount to a government "taking" of their land. Without the owner's permission, a property may only be found to be "eligible."

The one exception to all of this is in regards to publically owned property. The law holds government agencies to a higher standard and only allows them to prevent listing if they have adopted an acceptable preservation ordinance. Such an ordinance qualifies an agency as "certified" by the SHPO, and enables them to veto efforts to list their property.

Restrictions imposed by the SHPO only come into play when public funds are being used, and are intended to insure the protection of a valuable historic resource. As an architect, I would have to agree with the SHPO that eliminating a slate roof would do a lot of damage to a buolding's historic integrity. Of course I appreciate that sometimes it is bad to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but selling a building's slate roof is like selling the jewelry off of a locomotive to afford a tarp that will last 15 years.