What, so nobody's going to comment on the news out of Strasburg this weekend, even though it made Trains' Newswire at Kalmbach.com?

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

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

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.

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.

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

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).

.

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.