Another nominee for "forgotten treasures" right in the heart of Baltimore.........

The B&O Museum, for lack of other siding space, has shoved six vintage freight cars onto a siding leading right up to a major thoroughfare in a not-very-nice part of town. One car, a B&O gondola already repainted into B&O colors, has met with much graffiti work and vandalism already.

The scariest part of this exercise is that the crane visible in the background is part of United Iron & Metals, a scrapyard whose main gate is but fifty feet from the end of this cut of cars!

Is there ANYONE out there that wants some vintage B&O freight equipment? Call the B&O Museum and offer to trade or borrow, please........




lner4472@bcpl.net

No crane, but you still get the idea. Not visible is a steel "wagontop" boxcar and another plain 40' box.

Please note that the FGEX reefer in the previous photo has already been firebombed and its wooden interior ruined. The ice hatches are still open a year or so later. The boxcars are suffering from severe body rot and rust.

If someone wants these cars, please note that a truck can be backed right up to the street-trackage siding!


lner4472@bcpl.net

Our museum was trying to acquire a rivited framed tank car, supposedly the last C of G tank left. The local concern, Hunt-Wesson, had agreed to give us the car, but before we could go get it, they were bought out by Con Agra, and the local factory closed. Another round of negotiations/letters/ etc., now with someone far away who didn't have local ties. (Wesson Oil was invented in Savannah).

While all this is going on, the company next door decides to "clean up the front yard", went (not too) far off their property, and cut the car up, even though it did not belong to them.

If someone wants those cars, they better get them soon.

This all goes back to the debate about acquiring more than we can take care of. I think one basic precept we could all agree on is: If you aquire something, get it on the property!



rudd@cogdellmendrala.com

> If someone wants those cars, they better get
> them soon.

> This all goes back to the debate about
> acquiring more than we can take care of. I
> think one basic precept we could all agree
> on is: If you aquire something, get it on
> the property!

OK, OK, like Sandy, I was not happy when I saw the location of those cars--especially the gon that Harold Dorsey had painted and stencilled so nicely, now graffiti covered again.

However, to dispel a few potential misimpressions:
1. That siding is B&O Museum property, its just not a secure part of the property
2. The adjacent scap dealer knows very well who owns the cars--there's no chance of the crane coming over and grabbing one by mistake
3. In general I agree with only accepting what you can store and care for, but the B&O Museum's circumstances are a little unusual. In the early 90s CSX went on a vigorous systemwide housecleaning spree and offered a lot of what it found to the B&O Musuem on the following terms: a. if you want it, we'll ship it too you gratis in a hospital train; b. if you don't want it, we'll cut it up on the spot.

Given these choices, the Museum usually said yes. And I would submit that the equiptment is, to date, the better for it given the alternative.

All of that said, the Museum clearly has more rolling stock than it can care for and I am sure they would entertain and seriously consider responsibile adoption proposals: ie, you pay for shipping and removal, etc, and you can guarantee better treatment than the cars are currently enjoying.


eledbetter@rypn.org

> 1. That siding is B&O Museum property,
> its just not a secure part of the property

*You can say that again. I could have stolen all the journal brasses, no problem. (Wonder if they're there.)

> 2. The adjacent scap dealer knows very well
> who owns the cars--there's no chance of the
> crane coming over and grabbing one by
> mistake

As someone who has PERSONALLY lost two ev-LV two-bay gondolas to a scrapper's employees having a misunderstanding, I can say: Balderdash.

As close as those cars are to the scrap torches,I would not DREAM of leaving them where they are now without spray-paintong "DO NOT SCRAP" in six-foot letters on the cars. I might trust United Iron & Metal's management (and I do), but I wouldn't trust the ability of their employees or Baltimore City employees to make the right decisions (and for the record, the City is conducting massive area-wide junk and trash sweeps in that very neighborhood, with a lot of the stuff going straight to United).

> 3. In general I agree with only accepting
> what you can store and care for, but the
> B&O Museum's circumstances are a little
> unusual. In the early 90s CSX went on a
> vigorous systemwide housecleaning spree and
> offered a lot of what it found to the
> B&O Musuem on the following terms: a. if
> you want it, we'll ship it too you gratis in
> a hospital train; b. if you don't want it,
> we'll cut it up on the spot.

> Given these choices, the Museum usually said
> yes. And I would submit that the equiptment
> is, to date, the better for it given the
> alternative.

> All of that said, the Museum clearly has
> more rolling stock than it can care for and
> I am sure they would entertain and seriously
> consider responsibile adoption proposals:
> ie, you pay for shipping and removal, etc,
> and you can guarantee better treatment than
> the cars are currently enjoying.

No problem with me with that proposal. As I pointed out, all one has to do is roll the cars a few more inches, and they are on the street surface, ready to winch onto a lowboy. (Okay, someone has to move a "Jersey Barrier" or two, but seriously, you can get the crane right to the cars on pavement.

Incidentally, if someone does indeed have serious designs on acquiring any of this equipment, there is a distinct possibility I could attempt to arrange for short-term storage at a different siding in the Baltimore area until other transport is arranged. I just want those cars away from the punks that have fire-hydrant eating contests nearby!


LNER4472@bcpl.net