Those of you who follow this forum are probably aware that I am often critical of the Museum of Transport in St. Louis. The reason I am so is due to my opinions of how they have treated and continue to treat rail equipment entrusted to them for preservation and interpretation.

In my opinion the MOT is the poster child for a museum that has too much stuff and keeps adding to the mess. I do grant that they have made progress in recent years in the fact that equipment is getting much overdue and needed care. For this I am happy and I am sure many of you folks are as well.

Now even though they have made much progress they still, in my opinion, have a long way to go. I have questions that I posted in a previous post that still are not answered. They are as follows:

1. Why have we not read about a long-range plan for getting the most critical items inside a decent building?
2. Does the MOT still have equipment rotting away stuffed in that tunnel?
3. If so why is more equipment being acquired?

The reason I ask these questions is because I feel that MOT is lacking some basic things that are required for long-term success.

First I have not ever seen anything publicized about the MOT having a building plan or fund or anything of the sort. They have been entrusted with some of the most rare equipment in the US and they have it stored outdoors or in sheds. This is flawed; sheds are not the same as a climate controlled building. The Smithsonian would not place the John Bull in a pole barn out on the mall in Washington for display. I could go on more about this but I think most readers here know what I am talking about.

Second they are still picking up equipment while they have rotting equipment stored with no plans for any restoration. Do they still have a tunnel jammed full of equipment that has not seen daylight in years? If this is the case and more equipment is being added there is a problem. There needs to be a policy for accessioning and de-accessioning equipment, this is often carried out by a committee.

The cleaning, painting, and cosmetic work performed recently is a good thing, I am happy it is being done. The thing to remember is that until the most important items are identified and protected properly in a decent building all that they are doing is staying one step ahead of the twin monsters, rot and rust. Dear readers this in not good enough for me.

MOT has been entrusted with a world-class collection, they are striving to improve but they have not demonstrated what I feel are the keys to long-term success.

So here are my opinions explained in the most polite and eloquent manner that I have available. I am not bashing the MOT or any members of that organization or this forum. I have stated why I feel the MOT is still not on par with places like the B&O Museum or RR Museum of PA. They can be if they choose to, as I stated before if they want to be a museum of national importance they need to start acting like it. This as an opportunity for MOT to answer some of the hard questions I have asked.

Maybe the answers are; no we have no long-range plans for decent buildings and yes we keep adding more equipment while we have no policy of accessioning and de-accessioning equipment and still more equipment rotting inside a tunnel.

It is important to remember that it is often said that the first step is to admit that you have a problem. Once you identify your problem it should be noted that any task can be accomplished with these three simple steps.

1. Make a plan
2. Work your plan.
3. Adjust your plan.

Thank You and Good Day!

Tom Gears

tgears1@home.com

> I have stated why I feel the MOT is still
> not on par with places like the B&O
> Museum or RR Museum of PA. They can be if
> they choose to, as I stated before if they
> want to be a museum of national importance
> they need to start acting like it.

Well, dearly though I love the place, and much as I enjoyed my time doing restoration work there, I think much the same stone can actually be hurled at the B&O Museum if one chooses too.

Until 1991 all the indoor storage they had was the Roundhouse; from 1991 forward they have also had the indoor, though hardly climate-controlled, North Carhop, which added about 20 40'-equivalent units of covered storage. Both buildings together are nowhere near enough to house the entire collection, and critical items (for example, all the 20C steam) are still stored outdoors. Indeed, an earlier director's misguided decision to move the EA out of doors resulted in significant weather damage to that one-of-a-kind artifact (it is now in the carshop). Yet they too keep adding to the collection at a vigorous clip.

Wherein lies the difference? I think the reason the MOT attracts hostility and the B&O and RRMPA relatively less is not the difference in collection maintenance so much as the difference in collection philosophies. With the exception of some of the PM and C&O artifacts added to the collection in the Chessie years, most of the stuff in the B&O has tight ties to Baltimore, and it's hard to imagine a better place for it. RRMPA is even more tightly focussed.

MOT by contrast is a national collection with a number of significant eastern items. I think it is the concern of fans of particular eastern items and the sense that they might be better cared for "back home" that stokes the ill will.

That being said, I think poll barns or prefab sheds, preferably with at least rundimentary fire suppression, would be an improvement for all the parties mentioned--MOT, B&O and even RRMofPa. Last time I visited any of them, they all had some prime items bleaching under the sun in the back 40.

One nice solution is to get a charismatic governor like Mr. Reagan as your sugar daddy--his patronage and big state bucks worked wonders in Sacramento, whatever else one may or may not think of the man.

eledbetter@rypn.org

If only we all had the magic wand Mr. Gears must have hidden we would have buildings, and would have had them a long time ago. Then we wouldn't have to use those terrible train sheds or pole barns you see at so many rail museums. My time here only goes back a bit over six years, but the stories that seem to motivate Mr. Gears go back a lot longer. I will only say that if he ever was at MOT it was a long time ago as there has only been one or two things in the tunnel in my time, and sometimes it is empty. Right now there is a UP cast steel flatcar in it with some engine components on it. As the track now only goes half way through the idea of a lot of things in it is laughable. Was it used to store things years ago? Yes it was, but at the time it was the only overhead cover available. It was damp and didn't do the equipment, mostly streetcars, any good. But Mr. Gears is fixated on that time and will not forgive MOT for any sin, real or imagined. Why I can only guess.

Museum of Transportation
rdgoldfede@aol.com

I should simply chide the comment by Mr. Ledbetter that barely conceals his point of view about Mr. Reagan, but I just can't. Its late, I'm sick and pretty well medicated so, I'll see your hand, raise you and call!

This is a highly politicized world. I'd be willing to bet that most people enjoy RR preservation presicely because it offers a safe refuge from our day to day troubles. travails and squabbles.

That having been said, I'll make 2 points..Mr. Reagan understood a "hummer" as the forward projection of American military power as opposed the more recent connotation..

As to the specifics of the MOT. As far as sugar daddy politicians go-Missouri is famous for producing populist politicians, you mean to tell me howdy gebhardt can't pull a few strings? Oh thats right, RR museums don't exactly occupy a place next to heart of the typical Democrat activist, they of course preserve a patriarchal, burgueiose (sp?), non-diverse world. Can you imagine touting that as a crowning acheivement when speaking to the NEA? How about the late Mel Carnahan,able to win a Senate seat when DEAD- he couldn't help? Missouri is famous for producing populist politicians. Like my home state of Pennsylvania, I believe they are bringing home so much pork, they've made everybody fat and heart attack candidates. Don't forget, when daddy brings home the bacon, it comes with a price.

Finally, a shot across the bow at all of us! Given the cr*p (in some cases, literally) that is deemed worthy of government support via "arts" and "humanities", why aren't institutions that preserve the history of one of the 5 most important industrial forces better funded?

Seriously, I don't get it. Is it that the RR preservation community spends its time criticizing each other and not effectively lobbying (within the constraints of 501c3). Seriously, we gotta wonder why some moron throwing paint at a canvas is a worthy of a 6 figure grant but old locomotives, wonderful vehicles for the understanding/excitement of history, culture, science and mathematics are funded meagerly?

Many corporate "philahthropy" arms are likewise nothing more than creative ways to make political payoffs-and if I had my way, I'd defund them by removing the tax deduction for corporate donations.

I think we need to do some soul searching here and forget 1.) Criticizing each other 2.) waiting for the plantation owner to give us a better shack.

My final words, proving no doubt that Cough Syrup is courage in a bottle! Give MOT and Steamtown a break already! If you aren't lending a hand, zip your lip!

I am not sure what the point lies behind throwing dispersions at MOT or any other museum. While it is pleasant (and an ideal) to demand that a collection become focused and deaccessions take place, whereever will these objects go? How many institutions are so wanting of objects that they can absorb the items that would become available?

Some objects are of such heritage that they have no takers....would they be worse off where they are at or with no caretakers at all? Just look at the myriad numbers of park engines, some of which are maintained beautifully and others standing nearly derelict.

Unless the critics have the resources to preserve not only what they want, but everything else (of their locale) that deserves preservation, they might think again. Our resources would be better spent on improving relation between museums.

Perhaps (ARM?)somebody needs to develop a national clearinghouse for equipment that has no home, or for endangered equipment to be held until an appropriate disposition can be arranged. Institutions can trade their surplus equipment into this clearinghouse and use that as a credit to acquire other equipment they might want. Financing of the clearinghouse might be on the basis of equipment traded into it, by dues from all members, or by an endowment.

The point is that to poo poo any museum for having an overbuilt collection, while denying them the opportunity to dispense of surplus in good faith is a mean and shortsighted thing to do. We need to give museums the ability to deaccession and to preserve other objects that become available until they find good homes.

Michael Seitz
Missoula MT

> Those of you who follow this forum are
> probably aware that I am often critical of
> the Museum of Transport in St. Louis. The
> reason I am so is due to my opinions of how
> they have treated and continue to treat rail
> equipment entrusted to them for preservation
> and interpretation.

> In my opinion the MOT is the poster child
> for a museum that has too much stuff and
> keeps adding to the mess. I do grant that
> they have made progress in recent years in
> the fact that equipment is getting much
> overdue and needed care. For this I am happy
> and I am sure many of you folks are as well.

> Now even though they have made much progress
> they still, in my opinion, have a long way
> to go. I have questions that I posted in a
> previous post that still are not answered.
> They are as follows:

> 1. Why have we not read about a long-range
> plan for getting the most critical items
> inside a decent building?
> 2. Does the MOT still have equipment rotting
> away stuffed in that tunnel?
> 3. If so why is more equipment being
> acquired?

> The reason I ask these questions is because
> I feel that MOT is lacking some basic things
> that are required for long-term success.

> First I have not ever seen anything
> publicized about the MOT having a building
> plan or fund or anything of the sort. They
> have been entrusted with some of the most
> rare equipment in the US and they have it
> stored outdoors or in sheds. This is flawed;
> sheds are not the same as a climate
> controlled building. The Smithsonian would
> not place the John Bull in a pole barn out
> on the mall in Washington for display. I
> could go on more about this but I think most
> readers here know what I am talking about.

> Second they are still picking up equipment
> while they have rotting equipment stored
> with no plans for any restoration. Do they
> still have a tunnel jammed full of equipment
> that has not seen daylight in years? If this
> is the case and more equipment is being
> added there is a problem. There needs to be
> a policy for accessioning and
> de-accessioning equipment, this is often
> carried out by a committee.

> The cleaning, painting, and cosmetic work
> performed recently is a good thing, I am
> happy it is being done. The thing to
> remember is that until the most important
> items are identified and protected properly
> in a decent building all that they are doing
> is staying one step ahead of the twin
> monsters, rot and rust. Dear readers this in
> not good enough for me.

> MOT has been entrusted with a world-class
> collection, they are striving to improve but
> they have not demonstrated what I feel are
> the keys to long-term success.

> So here are my opinions explained in the
> most polite and eloquent manner that I have
> available. I am not bashing the MOT or any
> members of that organization or this forum.
> I have stated why I feel the MOT is still
> not on par with places like the B&O
> Museum or RR Museum of PA. They can be if
> they choose to, as I stated before if they
> want to be a museum of national importance
> they need to start acting like it. This as
> an opportunity for MOT to answer some of the
> hard questions I have asked.

> Maybe the answers are; no we have no
> long-range plans for decent buildings and
> yes we keep adding more equipment while we
> have no policy of accessioning and
> de-accessioning equipment and still more
> equipment rotting inside a tunnel.

> It is important to remember that it is often
> said that the first step is to admit that
> you have a problem. Once you identify your
> problem it should be noted that any task can
> be accomplished with these three simple
> steps.

> 1. Make a plan
> 2. Work your plan.
> 3. Adjust your plan.

> Thank You and Good Day!

> Tom Gears


mikefrommontana@juno.com

Thank you for the tunnel update. I will never again say another word about MOT leaving trains rotting in the tunnel. Until today there has never been anyone from your organization to let people know anything different. Trains rotting in the tunnel while more trains are added has been my perception of MOT; in fact my perception was trains rotting everywhere, the tunnel was just epitome of the whole situation. I am sure most people can understand this point and why I might feel this way.

You have gone on about my rant but you have still failed to address my major points about a policy for accessioning and de-accessioning equipment and a long-range plan to get the most important items inside. Maybe MOT has good long-range plans and a policy for accessioning and de-accessioning equipment. If these are in place they have not been communicated to the public at large. These things being made public would do a lot to dispel negative perceptions. I have put these items on the table and you chose to go on about my rant about the tunnel.

This leads me to feel that MOT is still collecting trains while the ones they have are still do not have proper care. The perception is that you are fighting a house fire with a water gun and are adding more furniture before the fire is out. Please dispel this perception as well.

Look at the Sumpter Valley website posted earlier and visit the news page. They have artist renderings of proposed facilities and photos of a shop building being built. They explain what purpose the new facilities will serve and shows someone a thousand miles away who likes narrow gauge that they have direction and leadership. I have never been there in person but I feel like if I sent them money it would be put to good use, I do not have this feeling about MOT due to my lack of understanding of where you folks are going and how you are going to get there.

You have the power to dispel these perceptions. Pleae show us long-range plans and policies for accessioning and de-accessioning equipment, I will never again say another word about it. If these policies and plans donÂ’t exist I think most would agree that they would be helpful and that might be something to work on in the future. If long-range plans and policies for accessioning and de-accessioning donÂ’t exist and MOT does not recognize their need or importance then these negative perceptions probably will not change.

Tom Gears

tgears1@home.com

Hi,

I imagine that Hume will remove this thread because it isn't really productive to railroad preservation, the bashing that is, but Tom does bring up some good points.

In the infancy of the movement, many "museums" sprung up because of all the equipment that was available and surplus. Now there is a new generation of surplus equipment and most of the old stuff is in the hands of "museums." Everyone has their own opinion as to where equipment should be and what is done to it.

The movement is evolving now and the practices of other types of museums are starting to filter into the rail preservation movement. As this happens, "museums" need to develop a plan of preservation for the equipment in their care. This includes a plan for acquisition and deacquisition of equipment in their care. This is a fairly easy thing to do, but the boards and members have to be willing to change, to keep the "museum" afloat and the equipment from returning to whence it came.

Everyone can criticize Tom for speaking his mind, but maybe he does volunteer his time or donate his money to groups. I do and I do it somewhere where I know it will make a difference and where I have a say in what's done.

So, all I ask is that you leave your personal attacks to private email and post constructive things to the board. Collective criticizem is meant for holding people and "museums" accountable, not to personally attack someones favorite group.

I have learned a lot from this board and I don't want to see it turn into some other boards that I read.

Stuart

Help Save the NC 87!!
gnufe@apex.net

No. I'm not going to pull the thread. These aren't my favorite kind of posts, and I admit I have a personal liking for the MoT, having lived in St. Louis for about 18 months, it is one of my very favorite places to visit. Haven't been for too long.

Regardless, you can speak your mind at the Interchange as long as you keep it polite, no profanity, and no personal attacks. Tom has obeyed the rules.

I will say the amount of progress at the MoT the last 10 years has been impressive. And no, everything is not yet perfect there.

Direct link to the Interchange
hkading@rypn.org

> I have never been
> there in person but I feel like if I sent
> them money it would be put to good use, I do
> not have this feeling about MOT due to my
> lack of understanding of where you folks are
> going and how you are going to get there.

Tom,

Create an RYPN User profile. Knowing more about you, your affiliations and interests will give you greater credibility with those you wish to influence. Also, a suggestion accompanied with a pledge of seed money will go far in creating change. As for the MoT side of things, it may be that Tom shares the sentiments of other potential donors. This could be valuable marketing information; albeit an email message directly to the museum covering these concerns may be a more appropriate avenue of communication.

In the end, none of us is perfect, but I enjoy the dialog.

wyld@oc-net.com

Like Hume, I lived in St louis (actually University City) while attending college some decades ago, and at the time did not work in railroad preservation - just took an armchair interest while building a different career. Still, i did visit the museum in its former location and was not overly impressed with its cumbersome and uncared for bunch of stuff with no story to tell.

About a decade ago I returned to St louis and saw the new location through the eyes of somebody now in the field. I saw the beginnings of a rational approach and real plans and management taking shape. There was still a lot of stuff but there seemed to be some purpose for it being there.

I have corresponded with Ron on other matters (I offended him with brevity) and have gotten to talk to Molly at conventions since and have been impressed with both of them as professionals. I hold neither of them responsible for creating the interpretive mission (which in my POV has been written too broadly given resources available) but believe they are doing commendable work to make the entire museum a lot better and more professional.

Given the interpretive mission of the organization continued collection is a given, whether or not there is a backlog of conservation work to be done. The reality of museum management IS a backlog of conservation and other unmet needs. For example, even with our very small collection of stuff on wheels in Savannah, my restoration shop is plugged with stuff which will be ready for display in a short time but there is no space available in the display area since I can't get a track contractor to lay more track into the stalls over there since the job is too small and the money is too little. Still working on bringing in some specific pieces to fulfill our mission anyhow while we work on track problems. Does this mean something might be outside for a while? Well, yes, but most of it is outside now anyhow while it is not being cared for in other ways. This isn't an example of irresponsible collection.

MOT isn't alone in having real problems but they are way ahead of some other mature museums in having good professionals at the helm and a plan. I reckon given the good start they have made I am content to wish them well in continued improvement and hope things get even better over time. Maybe they will share more specifics with us all.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

Good Morning All. I think there have been some good points brought up in this thread.

I think the problem lies in dealing with the "old school" of collections management. That is, get everything while you can, because it won't be around forever. In the 60's, when museums like Steamtown, MOT, were first beginning to emerge, that was an appropriate philosophy. All of the stuff, cars, engines etc, looked alot better than it does today. Very little thought was ever given to the future and "where to put it all".

Now 30 years down the road its hitting us all like a ton of bricks.

Steamtown for instance built a huge museum facility, a roundhouse with 40 some tracks, yet only 4 are designed to display equipment. The California State Musuem has a beautiful facility, yet they accepted the Santa Fe collection with no way to care for it. MOT has perhaps the most signifigant and representative collection of Railroad equipment, perhaps the only one that is truely a "national" collection, yet the equipment has suffered from years of neglect. The B&O musuem has the most regionally signifigant collection of equipment, yet the vast majority of it is subjected to the elements.

The reasons for all of the proplems at the above museums may vary, but the key problem is the same; ie long term stabilization and preservation of equipment. Its the old school philosophy that saved the equipment 30 years ago, now a new philosophy is needed to save it all again. I think the key now is not to look at what musuems have done in the past, but what they have planned for the future.

Not all musuems have the funding like the State RR museums of Pennsylvania and California, but EVERY musuem needs a collections management plan. If they don not at least plan for the future care of the equipment in their posession, then that is their shame.

bing@epix.net

Is it possible that a lack of "marketing" has prevented progress towards the goals that a museum wishes to achieve. How to present your operation to the funding sources that are available so that it has meaning and substance. Does it mean that the folks who started and maintained the operation have to look to someone experienced in such matters? How many of the "hands on", type "A" personalities out there are willing to delegate this authority or utilize such services for the benefit of the organization? Getting down to basics we have to market the value of our organizations and the contribution that it makes to the local, state and maybe national areas ecomomy, history or tourist trade. Money is there and I think you will find that it goes to the groups that have mastered the art of marketing.


lamontdc@adelphia.net

I do like to hear words of encouragement, but a few points need to be mentioned. MOT has never moved, despite two attempts to do exactly that. If it looks different now than it did in the 50s its because our founders had to "build" the ground we sit on as well as try to do everything else. What do I mean? The site consisted of a tunnel and a single track fill about 80 feet high extending east from it in 1944. The mainline had been moved about 100 feet south when the tunnel was abandoned and the space between it and the old line was all there was. So they used fill to widen the original embankment built in the 1850s and then created another lower level area to the north. This is where the parking lot and lower exhibit area are now. The lot and tracks were not placed here until the 80s. The storage tracks along the hillside to the north of the tunnel were also built on filled ground and we have photos of MP side dump cars at work to do this job. Support from the industry has been solid, as seen by the recent A&M donation that the owner initiated due to observing us for a few years. The first building, now our auto exhibit hall, was built here in the early 70s. It wasn't heated or cooled until the late 90s. Hard work gave us the difficult site on a hillside we now have, and it was an impossible site when they started, so we feel good about what they did, especially considering what they started with. And despite the size of the collection we have over the years turned down more than we have, and continue to be selective. I can't tell you how many cabooses and cars we have been offered in the six years I've been around. As for plans, there have been at least six master plans in the past, but none were able to be executed due to lack of support until the early 90s when the streetcar barn and big trainshed went up. The extent of the struggle to survive is hard to imagine, and two of our founders are still with us to bring it to life when asked (and sometimes without being asked). We will continue to work toward the ideal, despite the totally uninformed "advice" from some who think "making a plan" is all it takes. Come see at ARM in 2003. And there will be more news soon.


Museum of Transportation
rdgoldfede@aol.com

I'm still amazed that a "National" museum can survive as well as it does on a COUNTY BUDGET! Can anyone image YOUR county supporting such a thing? I have visited twice...1990 & 2001 (NRHS years) and the improvement from one visit to the next was phenomenal! Now, if that NYC locomotive could just be placed on solid ground.

sfreer@tvrail.com

Here! Here!

If a politican was say browsing this board, with an idea of funding a tourist RR, what would he think? Would he get the idea that only a small minority of an already small minority would approve of his vote, and remember it next election? Would he also think that an equal number of "railfans" would disapprove of his "pork barrel politics funding a junkyard", as some here would seem to imply.

Does any of this help either the MoT or preservation in general? Or does it further fuel the arguement that we are just bickering grown-up children, playing with trains and argueing over who should have which toys, and how they should play with them.

Ever notice that NEA and the watcha-ma-call-it organization for funding arts is attacked by conservatives from the outside, and NOT in public from the inside? Is it really any wonder they get funding, and the preservation community doesn't?

I can somewhat see the validity of the arguement that "you don't have to send money or scrape paint to express an opinion." But to criticize a musuem you have NEVER visited? Especially when there are "museums" I have visited that much more resembled "dead lines" than preserved examples!

I visited the MoT about four years ago. I was simply floored; I brought a roll of film, had only a little time, and ended up using up both, without taking in all of the rolling stock! I never even made it to the vehicle building!

I also know that like everyone else, the MoT is rationalizing their collection. They recently sold off their traction engine collection; apparently because they are considered agricultural equipment rather than "transportation".

But regardless, is all of this truely constructive? Will it raise buildings over collections, or repaint equipment? Do the vocal critics have a better way that will, or just want to stand outside the fence and gripe? Have they set a better example?

The "Dead Goat" board may not get much respect, but they got one thing right. Rather than bashing the powers that be over and over about the conditions of things at the C&TSRR, everyone is pitching together to buy a space heater for the shop crew! (I will be contributing too, I just have to get back on with my new password to say so.)

If only we were as tight with our criticism of hard working, often non-paid staff as we are with our checkbooks and our compliments....

(All of this, with no cough syrup to boot. :D )

-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:20a

Surviving World Steam Locomotives
james1@pernet.net