I’m going to throw this out to (hopefully) generate some meaningful discussion. Recent events show that the preservation mechanisms have some big holes in them. For me, the scrapping of MSO/D&M 466, and the scrapping of PJS/BFJ/Milw RSC2 #5 by the private owner really highlight these holes.

To head off some potential tangent discussion, let me state some facts about me: I’ve been an active railroad museum member for 20 years, sat on museum boards, and worked on moving and restoring various equipment. I’m also ex-railroad (one Class 1 and 3 shortlines, in various capacities). Point is, I’m well versed in railroads, their idiosyncrasies, and museums, their politics and finances. I’ve seen plenty of both what to do and what not to do.

What I think is sorely needed is a national non-profit organization whose sole focus to identify equipment worthy of preservation, and work towards its acquisition and movement to a railroad museum. Such an organization would not own property or track, and would not need to focus on property and equipment maintenance, advertising for riders, operations, etc. This would free the organization of much time and expense that goes into running a railroad museum.

The organization would be stripped down, and set up to be nimble and ready for action-a Strike Force for preservation, so to speak. Tools would be owned that would facilitate loading and repairs to equipment for movement. The core members would need to be doers, instead of talkers.

We have various national societies, but none have the focus I’m describing. Granted, this requires thinking outside the traditional railroad museum box, but, I submit the traditional is not working well and needs improvement.

The biggest issue is finding enough doers that know what there doing, and weeding out the talkers that have no business being involved.

I think it's an interesting concept--in a way, a type of non-profit equipment brokerage firm that also moves stuff.

I will respectfully disagree with the comment about too many talkers and not enough doers. The real problem will be raising the money for it, even with volunteers for muscle. Solve that problem, you'll have doers around. I certainly know the lack of financial punch is a serious drawback for me, and I know I'm not alone.

Our most serious liability, I feel, is that there are too few of us who are the negotiators and salesmen that, say, Ross Rowland is, and even he can go only so far when there are other organizations, firms, railroads, etc., that will not listen. I know this from first-hand experience.

So this would be something like the "leading" organization in the preservation field?

PC

The Association of Railway Museums already has an active parts committee that is led by Rod Fishburn. The parts committee sends frequent e-mails with news of available equipment and parts. Otherwise I am unsure if a 501c3 corporation is needed as suggested by this thread.

Wesley

I'm with Wes - why would the same people who aren't using the venues already available going to do a better job with yet another?

dave

I don't believe ARM is procuring or moving equipment. That is a key difference with what I am suggesting. Museums typically have too many irons in the fire to focus on procurement and movement, and they usually don't have funds for lump-sum purchases. This organization would bridge that gap.

Having said all that, if there was an existing organization that wanted to step up and go the extra mile, I say sign me up.

On the issue of finances, as a non-profit, this potential organization would likely struggle just like all the others. However, it would need to be set up to take advantage of any legal/ethical means of getting funds. I've personally seen museums turn down viable revenue sources because of lack of understanding, egos, etc. One needs to get around this mindset to tap all available sources.

I wasn't sure what kind of comments would show up on this post, after reading some of the other posts on RYPN. So far, good comments.

I think the idea has some merit. Certainly worth considering and discussing further.

Les

Two ARM collaborative efforts come to mind. First was the purchase of the entire TTC 4600 fleet, led by Tom Twigge at Halton County near Toronto. The second was the liquidation of the collection of the Lake Shore ELectric Railway Museum, led by Bill Wall.

There are other opportunities that come up on the parts newsletter, recently a Birney body. These are all traction items, but I am sure others examples are out there that others can add.

Wesley

I disagree -- what organizations trying to preserve historical artifacts need is money and the only way they're going to get it is ask.

NRHS and other national organizations have grants programs and any good fund raiser knows enough to say something like -- "hey we received a grant in the amount of xyz from organization abc to do such and such, but it won't be enough to do everything that needs to be done -- won't you help us with our project?"

As an aside, the NRHS grants program funded by donations, not by membership dues.

Bob H

There's a problem this ever-"popular" devil's advocate (stop laughing) sees with this kind of proposal.

For such an effort to be truly effective, it has to be able to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

This means that somebody--be it the guy with the dollars, some academic with letters behind his name, museum staff with Museum Studies academic credentials, a "walking encyclopedia" of rail preservation, a committee of several/all of the above, or whatever--will ultimately be making VERY unpopular and acrimonious decisions about what gets saved and what goes.

That is, if we actually want to avoid the "problems" we have all over the place with rail preservation today--a disproportionate number of E8s, UP Big Boys, Lackawanna MUs, and PRR GG1s preserved while no BQ23-7, RS2, or Amfleet car gets saved.

I know that an incredible amount of brokering, alerting, and negotiation goes on way, WAY back in the break rooms of car shops, in the offices of donors, by private e-mails, and via phone calls between the likes of Silk Road, the Gramlings, the Strasburg shop guys, the traction guys that brokered up Trolleyville, RMDI, Larry's Truck & Electric, etc. Just because it isn't aired publicly on TrainOrders, Railroad.net, Railfan.com, Chaski, RyPN, etc. doesn't mean it's not happening. I consider myself waist-deep in the rail preservation scene here in my town, and often the only way I find out what's going on is when the trailer towing another NJ Transit trolley shows up at the Streetcar Museum or another car rolls in at the B&O Museum!

No matter how much work and effort we put into such a salvation enterprise, someone somewhere is going to be absolutely, explosively LIVID that, for example, the two B&O cars that were cut up in New Oxford, Pa. weren't saved, or the two Milwaukee cars on the Walking Horse & Eastern. It doesn't matter to them that "we can't save 'em all" and it wouldn't matter how much of a case we made--mechanically, logistically, financially, academically, or whatever--against their preservation.

I believe we could make the case that those who have legitimate "skin in the game"--the Doyle McCormacks, the Steve Sandbergs, the Linn Moedingers, the Dave Conrads, the various Friends of the Museum/Railroad/Park groups, the railroad-centric Tech & Hist Societies, the Grand Canyon Railroad, Durango & Silverton, the reclusive loco collectors, etc.--ALL know EXACTLY what is out there either 1) of strategic use to them or 2) potentially filling a gap in their collections or mission statements. (As an example--the Reading auto parts car in Montgomery, Pa. I posted a picture of earlier this week, just to showcase as an example--the Reading Co. T&HS and the White Deer RR Museum both know all about it, and I believe the RR Museum of Pa. or their Friends do, too.) In the 1980s, and even the 1990s, such things could easily "fly under the radar;" in Internet 3.0 2011 it's pretty darn impossible for this stuff to "hide" even without any nationally curated or administered rail preservation database, "wiki," publication, or website.

CAN the situation improve? By all means. But it means someone--the NRHS, the R&LHS, Carstens, Kalmbach, whoever--has to step up, dictate a template or database format, declare objective standards, and risk the unpopularity of designating themselves an arbiter of "worthiness," in addition to actually funding (or seeking the funding) for administration, construction, maintenance, and oversight.

So how do you propose to "qualify" the receiving organization???

ETA

What if an online database, similar to steamlocomotives.com were established by someone (I know, I know, whom??). Submissions and comments to the database could be done either by site members a la' Wikipedia or a central group of webmasters.

This doesn't address the means to acquire-just-before-scrapping but at least would be a central database for folks in various organizations to truly know what is out there.

Matt Bumgarner

Let me clarify what I'm thinking-
this potential organization would supplement existing preservation networks, not replace them. If an existing museum or other preservation entity can procure and move a piece of equipment on their own, that would meet all my goals. But, for the times equipment falls through the cracks, or a museum needs help buying or moving something, this organization would be there. One organization can't save everything.

I don't see infomation on what is out there as the problem. I see lack of time/money/focus as the problem. I see this as a way to help address these issues.

Matt, this kind of concept has been reported to be one of the provisions for the NRHS plan to increase their involvement in preservation.

PC