Hello Tom: I am a long time vollunteer at the MOT. I agree with you on storing exhibits in a climate controlled building. So, when is the building that you are donating going to arrive? Please give the dimensions so that we can get the concrete for the foundation poured before the expected arrival date? If you are not sending a building, when can I expect you to show up and help at the Museum? I have plenty of projects that I can put your expertise to. As far as being on par with other museums, I am not lowering my standards of workmanship. When you come to work on my projects you will see what I mean. Then if you are not coming to vollunteer, I expect that you are sending a cash donation. Thats the least you can do. As far as acquiring new exhibits and artifacts, you know as well as anyone, that there is usually only one chance to get something. Otherwise the junker gets it. Jim Butler.


jim1522@aol.com

You are talking about government run museums not caring about railroads.

I think that it is not the politicians that you need to worry about. Sacramento and Strasburg are both good museums but like my own organiczation, the NPS, everything is done by committee. The process is far more important than the product.

Bob Richardson and other rail activists did not worry if the paper forms were filled out correctly, he got that room full of old records loaded into the truck, before they went to the dump.

People who love this railroad history and technology get a coat of paint on the roof to stop the leacks instead of waiting for a historic structure report to be completed.

The typical 501 (c) 3 museum has a lot more on the go and usually a lot fewer dollars; but they get spent better than in government. It is not a fluck that the vast majority of railroad museums are run by rail fans not officials.

Rail preservation is thought by mamy as grown men playing with their toys. I always tell people that yes it is fun but also a lot of hard work!

ted_miles@NPS.gov

Jim and Others,

Please donÂ’t attack me in a personal manner. I have said there is much positive that has been done recently. I have also done very well at not making accusations and personal attacks. I have said things like;

“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.”

This is directly from my last post and it left the door open wide open for anyone from your organization to respond in a positive manner. So now you fire at me with deep sarcasm. The MOT contingency has chosen not to stand up and say. Yes we do have a policy and it is…”

Now nothing has been accomplished in changing the perception that your organization lacks decent planning and policies and you have demonstrated that the response is to ignore the issue and hit me with sarcasm. I really thought that by asking if these plans and policies exist it would dispel perceptions that exist. I have asked in what seemed to be a very civilized manner and explained why these perceptions exist and how they could be eliminated. I do want to see the collection at MOT be safe and available for generations to come. I only ask what is being done to make this happen. I am sorry if that is too much to ask, by your reaction this is not the type of question you are interested in responding to in a positive manner.

I am done with the subject and consider it closed, you have demonstrated where you stand.

Thank You,

Tom Gears


tgears1@home.com

Words well put, Ron. It just goes to show that those who work in the field know the reality of taking care of large objects on a daily basis. It is easy for some know-it-all to "sound off" and have all the answers on how a museum should conduct its business; despite the rhetoric employed by naysayers, MOT is doing an excellent job. Keep up the good work!!

K.R. Bell
Railroad Museum of PA

> 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.

> So, when is the building that you are
> donating going to arrive?

Maybe that building is in another state with another museum, and some of MOT's collection should be there?

The issue of deaccession has been unilaterally ignored by MOT representatives and supporters. I guess Railroading is really just big boys playing with big toys, and MOT doesn't like to share.

mrwowak@yahoo.com

>MOT doesn't like to share.

AMEN!!!


mh58@lens.com

Disclaimer: this is NOT a thinly disguised shot at MOT.

Many railroad museums appear to have been founded on the philosophy "he who dies with the most trains WINS". This was probably necessary when historic equipment was within days (or hours) of being scrapped and preservation at any cost was paramount. Today, I think any museum ought to ask whether it can do justice to a collection of "national" scope. Sometimes less is more.

I haven't been to MOT in decades. Are the Purdue locomotives stored indoors?

tmanz@afo.net

I have tried to stay out of this, in part because it is quite difficult to take away the instinct to personally attack an organization on past aggressions. Similar comments could have been said by a variety of different people about a variety of different groups. I have made similar (although I don't think quite as personal) attacks against the B&O Museum and the Ohio Railway Museum. I realized the error of slapping a broad brush by those much more diplomatic than myself. I hope others do as well.

The fact remains is that everyone here makes some valid points. There is no question MOT is trying to change things; should a deaccession policy be in place in regard to the railroad and traction equipment? I think any good museum with a mission statement worth its salt would automatically have one. The MOT took a great step in deaccessioning some of their steam tractors a few years back (I wonder if a Port Huron Engine and Thresher was in there?), so the topic has obviously proven that it can work. Maybe its time to rationalize what can be saved, what can't, and what should be moved.

On the other side, I think that certain spokesman for MOT have made a VERY valid point; put up or shut up. Many of us are armchair railbuffs. Maybe its time to stop yapping and start getting invloved both physically and monetarily.

I Also think that it is time that the big boys get together and start hammering together some sort of national fund for rail preservations. It could very easily be a grant-based program that different-sized museum could apply to for different projects. The Board of Trustees membership could and should vary between large, medium, and small museums. Enough talk. Time for action.

TJG



Port Huron Museum
tjgaffney@phmuseum.org

> I have tried to stay out of this, in part
> because it is quite difficult to take away
> the instinct to personally attack an
> organization on past aggressions. Similar
> comments could have been said by a variety
> of different people about a variety of
> different groups. I have made similar
> (although I don't think quite as personal)
> attacks against the B&O Museum and the
> Ohio Railway Museum. I realized the error of
> slapping a broad brush by those much more
> diplomatic than myself. I hope others do as
> well.

> The fact remains is that everyone here makes
> some valid points. There is no question MOT
> is trying to change things; should a
> deaccession policy be in place in regard to
> the railroad and traction equipment? I think
> any good museum with a mission statement
> worth its salt would automatically have one.
> The MOT took a great step in deaccessioning
> some of their steam tractors a few years
> back (I wonder if a Port Huron Engine and
> Thresher was in there?), so the topic has
> obviously proven that it can work. Maybe its
> time to rationalize what can be saved, what
> can't, and what should be moved.

> On the other side, I think that certain
> spokesman for MOT have made a VERY valid
> point; put up or shut up. Many of us are
> armchair railbuffs. Maybe its time to stop
> yapping and start getting invloved both
> physically and monetarily.

> I Also think that it is time that the big
> boys get together and start hammering
> together some sort of national fund for rail
> preservations. It could very easily be a
> grant-based program that different-sized
> museum could apply to for different
> projects. The Board of Trustees membership
> could and should vary between large, medium,
> and small museums. Enough talk. Time for
> action.

> TJG

T.J. - Well said!


midlandblb@cs.com

> “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.”

Tom, I'd be much more likely to take your post seriously if it wasn't based on totally outdated information/impressions. After reading your first post, I had to wonder when was the last time you visited MOT, if indeed you had ever visted the place at all, since most of what you complained about hasn't existed for 15 or 20 years.

I also have to wonder what efforts you have made to determine if a plan exists and to get a copy. If not plan exists, MOT is certainly not the only rail museum not to have one. In fact, they do have a plan and have made much progress toward it's implementation.

Your original comments were based on badly outdated information and impressions based on something other than fact and they were more than a little accusatory, so I'm not suprised to note that people who are better informed about the place and some who volunteer there took umbrage at the tone.