The worthy thread on NRM Green Bay leads us (well, me, anyway) to another poignant question:

How does one appropriately pursue another's assets without coming off as greedy, ghoulish, etc.?

There are many instances where one can make a good case for worthy preservation elsewhere under the right circumstances. One now-defunct excursion line has rail that exactly would replicate another narrow-gauge's rebuilding efforts. I know of one key traction piece that sits in the middle of a hodgepodge collection that a more specialized group would love to get, but it looks like the answer is "no way" if only for spite. And we've seen cases like the WM coach leave RR Museum of Pa. to return to West Va.

So how does a group properly beg a scrap yard owner for those N&W 4-8-0's, or the failing businessman for a ponderous 4-8-4 that's rusting, or the city council for the 2-6-0 that's rusting in the park? What works, and what doesn't, besides the obvious?

Some years ago, Lynn Moedinger was the keynote speaker at the V&T symposium thrown by the Nevada State Railroad Museum and its friends group…

That year the topic was passenger car restoration, and during the general presentations he spoke on how Strasburg used Plywood as a replacement for side trusses and rubber membranes in place of painted canvas…

During his keynote speech he talked about the need, within railway preservation for a benevolent dictator, to make such decisions… He had a list of “forced” trades and such which would both benefit the artifact and the museums… On a collective basis, the results would be wonderful, but of course, some of us would be upset when he moved our favorite locomotive, car, trolley, or such to a new home… It was a great presentation delivered with the appropriate amount of tongue in cheek humor to mask the pain of the reality.

I had the honor of buying him and his wife a drink afterwards as the museum staff settled up with the casino (in Nevada a the site of our banquet…) and made it over to the after hours hang out…

I think you mean pursuing someone else's liabilities, Sandy--because in a very real sense that's what collections are. Each one comes with an associated set of expenses for conservation and maintenance--expenses you will incur, theoretically, in perpetuity. One should think of them as money pits not assets--albeit special money pits that are the reason the museum exists.

But to answer the question, I don't see it as much of a mystery.

First, you make sure you are in a position financially to act if the answer is "yes," and you do this before asking--either money in the bank, or a bank line of credit, or some such.

Then, you ask politely.

If the answer is no, you say "Thanks, let's keep in touch," and move on the to next opportunity on your list (You do have a prioritized list as part of your written, Board-approved collections plan, right?).

And that last bit gets to the underlying issue. The question should not be, "how do I get this specific piece of equipment [what questions do I ask, how do I phrase it, etc.]." It's "what types of objects do I need to add to the collection fulfill my interpretive mission?"

If you have a prioritized list of the types of things you need, you can put your effort wherever the best opportunity arises, and not get hung up staring through the window at one particular item. If something gets away, so be it--go save next highest priority thing that meets your plan.

Offering cash is one approach. But many Museums aren't in it for the money and don't want to sell. However they may well be willing to trade for something they would rather have.

The steam locomotive trade between IRM and the Henry Ford some years ago is a good example. Each traded a "duplicate" wheel arrangement for one they didn't have.

If they won't take your money, find out what they will trade for and try to get hold of one of those.

Sandy probably konws the details of a three way trade BSM organized a few years ago to get, I think, the Baltimore crane car then owned by Shore Line Electric.

How is that "greedy" and "ghoulish" anyway? I have approached a number of other organizations expressing interest in one piece of equipment or another simply by asking if they would be willing to sell or trade. If they are not interested, the deal stops there, and no one feels soiled by asking or being asked. Personally, I find it flattering to know others think highly enough of our collection to ask after pieces of it in that manner. Obviously, we are not about to part with many of the items, but I do not mind being asked.

Pete,

Better get it in writing with some sort of back-out penalty clause. I spent two years and spent a lot of personal capital with a major western carrier to get their last heavyweight diner with an intact historic kitchen to trade for a steam locomotive that was frankly out of scope and in pretty poor condition from a museum. (my intent was to privately restore the locomotive and then donate when the tax consequences were right to another museum) They renegged on the deal, and used the "ARM 'Code of Ethics'" as their crutch (I was not a fellow railroad museum). It had quite soured me on future cooperative buisiness/musuem ventures; although since then I have made a highly sucessful equipment restoration/lending arrangement with a prominent group in the Midwest for another piece (see Markers section of the May 2008 Railfan & Railroad.

Steve Zuiderveen

When the organization being asked is known to be on the brink of financial disaster, recovering (or possibly not) from major physical hardship (flood/fire/tornado/etc.), or otherwise in turmoil.

I personally know of at least three offers made to seriously declining or moribund organizations that, if accepted, could have left said organizations with at least some hope of resurrection if accepted. Two of them were rejected in rather hostile and indignant terms; the third was carried out but then aroused considerable indignation among many supporters--think of, say, Nickel Plate 763 being sold by the Va. Museum of Transportation to the Ohio Central.

Hypothetical examples (I hope): Supposing some Canadian group wants one or both of George Hart's locos and had a verbal promise from Hart, but Hart never executed any future sales agreement on paper? What if the Ohio Central wanted to sign a 10-year lease of PRR 1361, including completing the restoration work properly on their own terms and then using the loco in Ohio?

I am not sure if either of these examples work for me... The Hart example is both a verbal contract worth the paper its written on and a loco moving from one tourist line to another... either staying in private ownership or moving from private ownership to public ownership, while I could see issues of a 1361 being the oposite, moving from a museum to a heritage operation (I might have used the term "for profit" but that would be unlikly)

I think the better examples of museum to museum trades are the Some of the items released by the B&O, the Baltimore crane to BTM, or the recent gift of the NPC narrow gauge caboose from CSRM to the Carter group (or for that matter any of the many cars or locos which CSRM has deassecioned and donated elsewhere). I would hope many of us may look about our collections and consider which cars might be better off elsewhere... How ever, I suspect that most of our surpluss cars would be surpluss cars elsewhere...

Asking if a car would be available, or simply making other institutions aware that something they own is interesting and would have a home in your collection is not rude. Being angry if they say "no" is...

In the one case, I would not say there was "anger" at being rejected. If anything, the "anger" was from the party being asked. And to some extent, the problem in that case was that it was like asking the heirs of a terminally ill patient on life support if they wished to consider arrangements for organ donation when they haven't accepted that the patient in question is terminally ill.

I wouldn't be surprised if Plan B were to get a bunch of high-grade-steel stuff with which to trade to the scrapper that will, in all likelihood, be involved with the situation in the end.

It took about 15 years between the date of the first letter to Shore Line Trolley Museum requesting a deal on WRECo 650 (Washington DC center door trolley), and the day that the car was delivered to our Museum. Several interesting schemes came and went before the stars and planets (switch points?) lined up for a deal.

Wesley

How is that "greedy" and "ghoulish" anyway? I have approached a number of other organizations expressing interest in one piece of equipment or another simply by asking if they would be willing to sell or trade. If they are not interested, the deal stops there, and no one feels soiled by asking or being asked. Personally, I find it flattering to know others think highly enough of our collection to ask after pieces of it in that manner. Obviously, we are not about to part with many of the items, but I do not mind being asked.


Bravo.

The whole purpose of an exchange based economy is that two parties exchange something of value adequate in amount and form that each want so that BOTH PARTIES are better than before the exchange. If you are willing to provide adequate consideration to an owner with full disclosure, and without deception or force, then don’t apologize. If they say it's not for sale so don’t ask again, respect their wishes and leave a business card.

What you have to realize here is that locomotives and equipment are anything but fungible and the assessment of intrinsic value is a very difficult thing to determine and is subject to a certain amount of economic relativity-e.g., its value depends on your observation point.

You can bet for example that say the Reading 2100 would've been a bigger prize to say RRMPA or RCTHS than say to say NCTM, (because of their focus) when it was on the market. However a private interest attempted to accomplish the equivalent of cold fusion-making money with a big steam engine.

Some of this is counterintuitive. I can make the case that a smaller locomotive is more valuable than a large one because of its greater utility on the generally smaller, lightly built tourist roads. Hence SP 1744 found a home quickly and without going at a fire sale price. A big engine might be a marquis acquisition for a museum (assuming they had some bucks) so while RRMPA might love a T-1, I’m betting Mr. Moedinger really wouldn’t have much use for it and he’s right across the street.

Sometimes that exchange has to overcome a certain amount of “I want it because you want it and I know you want it”. Other times, the price is a request, especially if you can provide a tax letter that provides an 1120 deduction that exceeds scrap price.

This line of thought is unfortunately representative of certain type of economic illiteracy that’s prevalent these days. People don't see exchanges as win-win, but as somebody getting scre**ed. Hence we have people conducting those insulting “give something back” campaigns predicated on the idea that one person's success entails another's failure.

You have to size up the owner's interest in the artifact versus your interest, relevance (and willingness to pay) -- and take it from there.

Obviously you're not going to pry 611 from the VMT or 1005 from WRM. But within reason, you absolutely should and must ask - early and often. Here is why. If things change and they ever do think about disposing of the unit, your long-stated interest will be influential.

But that's not enough. How many museums have been asking for the Baldwin Sharks for how long? Many and a long time I bet. Yet if Larkin donates them, he's likely to consider capabilities (IRM can put them under cover and maybe even fix them) and relevance (a New York Central museum). Also reputation of course.

Collections policy matters too. Narrow beats broad beats none. Suppose somebody has a 500 series Key System car. It fits the collections of IRM, WRM and every museum with no collection policy. However WRM wins hands-down on focus.

Ultimately you can't pry any asset out of anyone's hands, but you can have such a good plan for their asset that it just naturally becomes the right thing to do in most people's minds. Best you can do.

Robert, your comments are dead on...

You have defined the three things you need to gain and care for any artifact... Its good stewardship... Having a collection focus, having a collection policy (which probably defined the focus) and resources for care.

With out those three basic (non artifact) things you have a bunch of stuff, not a collection.

I run a historic house museum. The family has traditionally contributed any objects to two different museums, our house, and a historic society. They recently made inquiries about our collection policy. They were given copies of the policy and shown the cataloging system. We then found several objects they had donated both in the inventory and on paper... Satisfied we were given several significant (to us) valuable objects.

Good stewardship has rewards.

Folks,

I am working on an article about museum trades and sales in the electric traction field. There have been at least 60 times when museums have trades cars.

Possibly because they are lighter and simpler to move a lot of cars have gone to better homes. Some of the big names have got that was because of thei horse trading. IRM is an example.

it is always a good when a museum is doing a trade, the artifact is more likely to get a better environment. At the Western Railway Museum we had a logging shay locomotive; about 10 years ago, Roots of Motive Power approached WRM about the locomotive. The trustees said no thank you.

However in recent years the Roots people have built a storage and restoration building. When they asked again with indoor storage available the WRM trustees said yes because they could see an improved status for the locomotive.

The list goes on and on. i only wish that the main line museums did more of it, but the larges size and weight of the cars and locomotives bakes it much more difficult and expensive for them.

Ted Miles

[quote="Alexander D. Mitchell IV]When the organization being asked is known to be on the brink of financial disaster, recovering (or possibly not) from major physical hardship (flood/fire/tornado/etc.), or otherwise in turmoil. I personally know of at least three offers made to seriously declining or moribund organizations that, if accepted, could have left said organizations with at least some hope of resurrection if accepted.[/quote]

I still do not see the problem. If we were on the brink of financial disaster, we might just welcome a way out, even if it meant parting with some assets to save the rest.

I think your real issue may be with the attitude of the organization being asked to part with assets to save themselves. Being unwilling to do that is all well and good, but it can be rather like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Hostile rejection of a sincere offer is also quite rude.