An object lesson here:


http://www.warbirdsnews.com/warbirds-ne ... italy.html

Dave

Good old spite.

(Dictionary definition of spite: Malicious ill will prompting an urge to hurt or humiliate another person.)

The Italians now have their own version of GTW 5629. Completely avoidable destruction of historic equipment caused by stupid decisions and an unwillingness to work together.

But it is an instance of a pattern we see all the time in railway preservation.

1. Well-meaning entity promises a better home. Museum wants the money. They don't want to scare away this novice railfan money by confronting him with the sobering reality that he might not be able to move it, so they craft the contract WITHOUT a clause to efficiently resolve that possibility.
2. Having been negotiated dry by museum, Entity now lacks resources to even move it off the property. Museum knows that, or should have found out.
3. Museum tires of storing other people's stuff indefinitely. Decides this must end at ALL costs, without thinking too hard on what those costs might be.
4. Forceful ultimatum!
5. Entity executes its only option. Or doesn't, and it turns into a pissing contest, so museum sees only red and no reason.
6. ???
7. Profit


And all along, the problem happened at #1. They knew perfectly well this was a likely outcome. They knew or should've known the financial wherewithal of the buyer. They saw a lot of stupid railfan money, and they wanted it. They planted the seeds of the artifact's destruction. They resorted to #3 only because they refused to insist on a contract for #1.

Although the Italian museum had a better angle than most: they could have agreed to forgive the back storage if the owner agreed to a new contract allowing for reversion of the artifact back to the museum in the event of non-removal after X time.

Something similar happened in Cleveland, Ohio with the Gerald Brookins Troilleyville collection, although liquidation occurred before the last moment.

One cannot save or preserve everything... sometimes things out live their usefulness .

Mr.Starr

Short term thinking dooms a lot of projects. How many museum ships are close to sinking at their moorings because a well-meaning for short-sighted group accepted the ship, either not realizing they'd have to maintain it to the same degree as dozens of paid ailors crawling over it every single day, or just not caring and thinking that, "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it," (famous last words)?

"cannot save everything" - you can't say that since currently, you don't save anything at all. Fact is you've never earnestly tried to save everything in any sustainable way.

These are problems of "preservationists" thinking only of "collecting" and not of "preserving". For the rail field it's railroad, land and carbarns. For ships it's really going to take wangling some drydock arrangements. They might work out some in greenfield coastal land, but I see a ton of unused or derelict facilities all over. Just follow the shore of San Francisco Bay and you'll find dozens (starting just a mile north of SFO at the derelict Kaiser drydocks.) Hunters Point and Mare Island are still quite well equipped. I don't see any of these sites being overrun by development (if it didn't happen by 2006 it ain't gonna.) So I think maritime preservation may have to throw town their flag at places like these and commit to develop them.

Most of the successful operations today started out as well meaning but underfunded enthusiast driven groups. Organizations that are well established and stable don't usually take on the long shots, its the enthusiasts who get the ball rolling. Now many of them do succeed, and many of them also fail. Many of the artifacts and equipment that has been lost due to the inability of the group to save them would have been lost anyways. At least an attempt was made.