I am looking for guidance, information, and sample contracts/lease agrements for privately owned equipment located on muesum property. Any help or contacts with other museums that can share information would be great.

John Deck
Great Plains Transportation Museum
Wichita, KS
johndeck@att.net

At Hoosier Valley RR Museum we have had a policy of museum owned
equipment only for a number of years now. Saves headaches.

There is a growing trend in privately owned railroad equipment, and a savvy museum may find it to its benefit to welcome some privately owned equipment under the right circumstances. On the pro side, having privately owned equipment on site may help fill gaps in the collection or provide revenue rolling stock without adding the burden to the facility. However one of the major cons are private owners who want a place to "store" their equipment in anticipation of "some day" doing a restoration project, but who never actually do any work.

I know some people would be very hesitant to personally fund the restoration of a piece of equipment owned by a museum, but would not think twice about sinking the family fortune into restoring something that they personally own and then leasing it to said museum. The museum gets the same without the burden of ownership.

I would say that such decisions should be made on a case by case basis, with an agreement in place that handles the inevitable issues that arise. One organization I know of, the Midwest Railroad Preservation Society depends upon privately owned equipment storage as a big part of their revenue stream.

I too would like to see a sample agreement, as I am in a similar situation and would be interested in knowing how others are approaching the same issue. The key to any agreement is to make sure that both sides are protected, and what can be done if the equipment owner fails to maintain the equipment or pay storage fees.

Same at the Pacific Southwest Railway Museum in Campo, CA.

The same for Orange Empire Ry Museum. The policy which dates back probably 35-40 years, does allow the Board to enter into an agreement (on a case by case basis) if it is beneficial to the museum. No "dumps" on the property. It took us years and decades to change all the preexisting privately owned equipment to museum owned. And even deal with a promised donation to the museum upon arrival that did not occur. Since that policy, OERM has only entered into a few agreements with other non-profits--none with individual owners.

If you feel that you need to make arrangements to host non-museum owned equipment, pay attention to the problems others have reported with having privately owned equipment on the museum site.

As worthy as it sounds, all one needs to do is look at the fiasco at Mid-Continent to see the perils of such an arrangement.

While there can be problems, arrangements such as this do work very well in some places.

Where it does work, there are generally clear requirements for insurance, car storage fees, car condition requirements, etc. I know of a number of operations where equipment that is privately owned is used on excursion trains. The revenue from the use is credited towards the car storage. Any work on the car is then charged to the owner. The key is a clear agreement.

The challenge comes when storage space is tight or only out in the public. Then additional requirements may be necessary. However, if the space is available, or the need is present, then such arrangements can benefit both parties.

good or bad as it might be, other locations may not be well suited, we don't want to see another 5629 fiasco. I would have to think a museum is better friendly quarters. But if one has the money for a private car they need to have a pro-active involvement.

If there's an extended agreed time of non-involvement by the owner perhaps the agreement has to state a donation to the museum with a monetary tax writeoff given to the owner.

Most of the cases I can think of revolve around privately owned locomotives and passenger cars. Are there any noteworthy examples of private ownership with freight cars both good and bad....?

You need to have airtight agreements about what I consider to be inevitabilities, because I've witnessed every one go south. Typically in an emotional "head of steam" way in which rationality goes out the window, and 10 years later you swear "Why, oh why, did we make those choices?"

* The owner is not able to pay the car storage fees.
* The owner doesn't do upkeep, and it deteriorates or starts looking ugly.
* The storage relied on a friendly relationship, which goes away... often due to a new manager who is hostile to private-car storage.
* The equipment also benefits the museum in some way, and parties squabble over how that should be credited.
* The car is in respectable storage, and is in dire peril of being moved to less respectable storage.

Now, why should the museum care about the last one? After all, ownership is everything, right? Nope. Once your museum is associated with a piece, its fate is your fault in the eyes of the world... until they see it at another respectable home. Saying "that was always a private owner piece" will not help you at all. BTDT.

And don't be "tone deaf" to a private owner's personal situation. Private owners are not founts of money. Usually they are railfans who consider themselves heroes for maxing their credit cards to save a car. Well-meaning, but reality quickly catches up. Your job as a museum is to avoid at all costs shaping "reality" so it results in destruction of the car.

I'm not saying let poor private owners have free storage. I'm saying anticipate this situation and include "car reverts to the museum" clauses in your agreements (perhaps with "right of first refusal on resale and credit for money spent" to soften it for the owner.)

At the Indiana Transportation Museum, we have several pieces of privately owned equipment, I would try to contact us this weekend and see if anyone can tell you anything about the contracts we have with our private owners.

At all costs, I would not allow a group or owner to cause a situation like this (from a recent post on another topic):

A museum should never cede control over what is being done on its property.

When WRM sells or gives away an artifact, a standard clause in our contract is that title does not pass until the artifact has been loaded on a truck and has left museum property.

Other issues arise from car storage and ownership not being reflected in just the idea of private cars being stored on property.

Insurance
FRA Compliance and costs
damages
use

Simply put, I think there most certainly can be a mutual agreement between owners and hosts. I have seen a couple local groups have issues arise. One museum, The Greater Cincinnati Railway Museum has seen some major issues arise from private car owners.

If I were to run a museum and need to write an agreement, it would include language about upkeep, museum use, fra compliance, payments if the car falls outside of the scope, museum default ownership in the event 365 days of non-compliance of the agreement is in place with no exceptions, insurance be paid, and a plan submitted for removing from property.

I looked at getting a caboose last year and spoke to three groups about storing the cab. All three were on board with having an operable cab. The issue becomes upkeep and use. It costs money to keep the COT&S up. The museum could pay for those with the ability to use the car. What happens if the car is wrecked beyond repair? Or if someone is injured, does the museum hold the insurance or the owner?

Make sure you have all bases covered with the owner and it may make for a mutual benefit.

Joe

What in the world does that mean?

I have not heard about a "fiasco" at MCRM, so I don't know what you mean. Whatever the issue is, it does sound like an MCRM internal affair, so maybe it is none of our business.