| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| Question about Museum accredition https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9515 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Question about Museum accredition |
On another Net BB, I saw an allegation that, to simplify it, one railroad museum (A) took the effort to offer another museum (B) a diesel locomotive because the first museum was in the process of seeking museum accredition, and somehow the locomotive (which was not from A's turf but was from B's turf) did not fit into the plan and had to be de-accessioned before accredition. Now all of this could be balderdash. If it is, say so. but if there is any truth to this, I see some serious questions arising. What about, for example, ex-military-surplus locos, which supposedly by law cannot retain military markings? Isn't, for example, painting an ex-military Baldwin as a "Baldwin shop switcher" (as the RR Museum of Pa. did) cheating? What are the choices for the NC Ports F-M that Spencer is getting (which I think is also ex-Army before NCP got it)? LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net |
|
| Author: | Superheater [ Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Question about Museum accredition |
> What about, for example, ex-military-surplus > locos, which supposedly by law cannot retain > military markings? Isn't, for example, > painting an ex-military Baldwin as a > "Baldwin shop switcher" (as the RR > Museum of Pa. did) cheating? What are the > choices for the NC Ports F-M that Spencer is > getting (which I think is also ex-Army > before NCP got it)? Alexander, I don't think the restriction about using United States (service branch of choice) is a legislated restriction. If it is, Lionel was breaking the law like nuts in the late 50's and early 60's when military themed trainsets bore U.S. Army, U.S Navy & U.S. Air Force. I think the military theme has returned in 027 a few times more recently too, but I don't follow the littles ones that closely to say so for sure. I believe the restriction stems from an agreed upon condition of donation. Unlike a private entity, the Navy is not making a donation to comply with the conditions of the tax code to obtain a tax deduction. A private entity MUST donate property without restriction to obtain the deduction for a charitable donations on their 1120 (the corporate 1040). Therefore, the Navy can say "its yours but only if you don't use the name U.S. Navy". Personally, I think its a little goofy to say don't tell anybody where you got it. Its not like somebody's going to take the old Baldwin to some interchange and represent themselves as naval officers picking up a few tank cars of whatever for top secret purposes... superheater@rrmail.com |
|
| Author: | Ron Goldfeder [ Sun Apr 25, 2004 12:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Question about Military Markings on Locos |
After being involved with the military surplus system while on over 26 years of active Air Force service as well as now in a museum setting this is what I believe the situation is regarding military markings on locomotives, etc. Service regulations require certain degrees of "demilitarization" of items as they go into the surplus system, and these rules change over time, making confusion normal. In the case of rail items they have "removed" military markings to various degrees, usually using a crude overpaint by brush or spray can to obscure them, and builder's plates might be removed or defaced as well. But once you have the loco or car I am not aware of anything to prevent the repainting of these markings when the item is in a museum, as opposed to being used on a short line railroad, for example. Most of the ones at the Museum of Transportation in St. Louis have repainted markings, along with descriptive signs about them which say they were obtained through military surplus channels, in addition to providing basic info on the exhibit, when built, by who, how used, and where used if we know it. Museum of Transportation rdgoldfede@aol.com |
|
| Author: | Erik Ledbetter [ Sun Apr 25, 2004 12:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Question about Museum accredition |
Here's everything AAM has to say on what is expected of an accedited museum with regards to collections stewardship: http://www.aam-us.org/programs/accredit ... rdship.cfm Each museum has to interpret these expectations according to its situation. Take two railway museums. One might decide that its collections policy is to interpret the history and development of diesel locomotives in North America. Another might decide that its collections policy is to interpret the history of railway locmotives in California. The first museum might keep diesels from around the country to illustrate various manufacturers, models, and technical developments. The second museum would deaccession anything that was never used in California. In either case, the AAM Accreditation Commission would not dictate the content of the collections policy. It's interest is limited to 1. does a policy exist? 2. is it logical and internally consistent?, and 3. Does the composition of the collection reflect the policy adopted? So, basically, your question doesn't have much to do with accreditation per se. What you are uneasy with, I beleive, is the policy the museum in question chose to adopt and implement in response to the requirement that a policy exist. The content of the policy and the accession/deaccession decisions made to implement is are entirely an internal matter for the museum. eledbetter@rypn.org |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|