Greetings,

We commonly see items/structures named after individuals as a form of fundraising. Can you list some innovative ways of applying this to our realm?

God Bless,
Gerald Kopiasz
Heartland Railroad Historical Society

Heartland Railroad Historical Society
hrrhs@aol.com

The Wilmington & Western/Historic Red Clay Valley named PRR doodlebug 4662 "The Paul Revere" after Revere Copper & Brass underwrote a $100,000 rehabilitation/restoration. Of course, never mind that it was a B&M train name........

lner4472@bcpl.net

I believe several organizations raising money to restore structures have sold bricks. It's a rather simple little gimmick, (and you keep the bricks too.) The people pay $x (usually between $100 and $300) and get "title" to a nice brick engraved with "In Memory of..." or "Through the generosity of....". Then you use these bricks as edge pavers along the walks and platforms, or even as a wall of the new sheltered entryway. Those who donate less money may sometimes get "title" to a plain brick, as well. This works especially well if you can use it to generate interest in your local community (as well as the kin of ex-railroaders)

I do find it mildly amusing when you see people actually show up with the map and title to point out "their" brick to the kiddies (And the ever practical (and literal) children always then want to know why they can't take the brick home,since it is theirs)

Selling the naming rights to entire structures, or rolling stock sounds a bit more risky to me. Sometimes the deepest pockets aren't attached to the best companies/individuals.

Lots of brass tags on seats at Charlotte Trolley.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> Selling the naming rights to entire
> structures, or rolling stock sounds a bit
> more risky to me. Sometimes the deepest
> pockets aren't attached to the best
> companies/individuals.

Selling naming rights for a piece of equipment or building may be very risky in ways not everyone will understand. Questions arise in how prominently the name is displayed and for how long. For sake of discussion, a long time member of your volunteer organization donates a large sum towards the repair and repainting of a Pullman car that has seen hard times. He only wishes that his name is painted in 3" letters under the car name. We assume in our example that everyone agrees and the work is done. Ten to fifteen years later the car requires a new coat of paint and a different individual pays for this cost, perhaps many times more than the earlier repaint. Does the name of the first donor need to remain? If you choose not to allow it to stay, does the organization risk upsetting the original donor, and/or his family, thus damaging the relationship (and future donations)? Obviously, the addition of the name might compromise the restoration and confuse the public as well. Certainly, this should not be seen as an "easy" way to get money.

The second issue relates more to private grant foundations. Many community and corporate foundations that I have worked with in the past have clear restrictions on funding named projects. Some cite the lack of recognition for their organization's contribution, some are concerned that the name might signify that this is a donor driven project and not a true priority of the organization. In some communities the name might be objectionable (as was alluded to in the previous post about those with deep pockets). In other cases members and other potential future donors may feel that the name "cheapens" the experience and/or the credibility of the organization to the point that they will not fund future projects.

I don't know how hard this becomes when an organization is viewed as being tied to a specific company such as a specific railroad company. Another example might be a place like Greenfield Village. I've often wondered if the connection to the Henry Ford and the Ford Motor Company makes it hard to get some organizations to become donors.

New shop or display structures might not be as difficult in the naming arena, but the rule of thumb is still that the naming rights only go when the lion's share of the project is covered by the naming person or organization. If they only cover 10% of the total project cost, the name might make it hard or impossible to raise the additonal 90% to complete the project.

I'd be interested to hear about examples of this pitfalls that have happened in rail preservation. Does anyone have a specific example?

David Farlow
Whitewater Valley RR

hudson.industries@worldnet.att.net

> I'd be interested to hear about examples of
> this pitfalls that have happened in rail
> preservation. Does anyone have a specific
> example?

I believe just last spring when the Cumbres & Toltec Scenic named their new parlor cars there was a bit of a flap on various NG boards about "What made THIS guy so deserving?...or more so than Mr. X?" And this was just an honorary thing.

Beyond that, I'm not sure I'd want to be the fellow who signed the contract for an "Enron" anything,

> Selling the naming rights to entire
> structures, or rolling stock sounds a bit
> more risky to me. Sometimes the deepest
> pockets aren't attached to the best
> companies/individuals.

I like the concept of naming buildings and facilities after members of the museum family you want to honor. Maybe someday, we'll have the problem of having to deal with the problem of a donor wanting his (or her) name prominently displayed.

At the museum that I'm associated with we named a car storage building after a former Museum president that had later contributed the seed money for the project. This was our honoring of him and his wife -- not a request of the donor.

We named a passing siding after the late wife of a museum director, who on her own right was involved at the museum. Then later after the husband died the wood shop in which he did much work was named for him.

We have a display of toy trains and other nostalgia items in a couple of baggage cars. The member who put this together in the 1970s, including buying the cars, dedicated the display to his late wife. We still refer to the collection and the display by the family name.

The machine shop has a name applied to it. But probably few know what it is. The individual it is named for has been diseased for about 35 years. He was a former streetcar CMO who had spent his last years at the museum.

Oh yes, we have a building with a name that commemorates the donors. But the name is of the backyard railroad where the cars and engine inside came from -- not the family name.

Brian Norden

bnorden49@earthlink.net

The Smithsonian had a "conflict" just a month or so ago with a donor who wanted to donate, if I remember correctly, 28 million dollars for a "Popular Culture" wing. This would've been the largest single donation to the Smithsonian. The staff and the donor couldn't come to an agreement to how the wing was to be run. If I remember correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, some of the dissagreement was "who" was to be featured, and how. It seemed from the article in the paper, that the donor wanted control over the wing, thus the "donation" had to many strings attached.

Smokebox

> The Smithsonian had a "conflict"
> just a month or so ago with a donor who
> wanted to donate, if I remember correctly,
> 28 million dollars for a "Popular
> Culture" wing. ...If
> I remember correctly, and please correct me
> if I'm wrong, some of the dissagreement was
> "who" was to be featured, and how.

Oh boy, was this ever a can of worms. The donor was Mrs. Catherine Reynolds, and the recipient was the National Museum of American History. The gift was negotiated by Smithsonian president Laurence Smalls without the involvement of NMAH. The donation was to establish a "hall of American Achievers" with the idea that their life stories would inspire young people. The donor had significant, though not absolute, rights over the exhibit's content.

NMAH's curators had very real reservations about the entire concept--after all, the "great man (and woman)" school is exactly what they as social historians had been moving away from.

Ultimately the two sides (professional curators and their allies outside the museum) and the donor could not agree at all on the purpose of the exhibit, and the gift was withdrawn. To my VERY great personal relief, I might add.

For an account fairly sympathetic to the donor, see

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 2Feb5.html



Wash Post article
eledbetter@rypn.org

The Pennsylvania Railroad named the sleeping cars used on trains 60/61 The Pittsburgher for prominent Pittsburgh businessmen, most of whom were founders or major figures in the businesses whose executives rode the train. (Pittsburgh - NY)

The Electric City Trolley Museum Association

Isn't the Smithsonian itself named for its first donor? Wasn't Smithson a Brit or Scot?

Anyone wishing to endow the __________ian Steam Railroading Instutution, please contact

Aarne Frobom
The Institute of Steam Railroading
P. O. Box 665, Owosso, MI 48867

Named engines and cars are not available, but we've got a 40-foot water tank that would look great with any sponsor's ad on it. For a suitable fee, or course.

froboma@mdot.state.mi.us

Anyone wishing to endow the
Lake Shore Railway Association
contact:

J. Siffert
Lake Shore Railway Association
P. O. Box 1131, Elyria, OH 44036

WLE384 could use a sponsor




lamontdc@adelphia.net

>

Well if this is what the Smithsonian really thinks, then they can go to you know where and take their revisionist history with them. Thats the biggest line of bull that I have ever heard, and those in the museum field should recognize the fallacy of that thinking.

People motivated to accomplish something worthwhile can and do accomplish great things. How can they just blatently decide to ignore history to push a social agenda? Just tell me how Bill Gates, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford did not make a difference in this country. This agenda is pushed for one reason, so that we, as a collective citizenry, will be brainwashed to think that we cannot accomplsh anything by ourselves, that we need big government or some institution or program to do it for us.

How does this relate to railroad preservation? First, its a wake up call to those who design exhibits to fight this trend and tell the true stories of the individuals that "made a difference" in railroading. Did Kate Shelley make a difference crawling acrossed that trestle to save the passenger train? Not if you are the Smithsonian. Might as well have let those people die.

The other point is that many of these preservation efforts that we so dearly love were started by individuals who wanted to make a difference. Just think back to the beginning of many of our organizations, and there is a founder, someone with the drive, courage and love of railroad history to risk his or her money and time to start these museums and groups. So according to the Smithsonian these people didn't make a difference. The historic rail equipment they singlehandedly saved doesn't make a difference either. Bob Richardson didn't make a difference either. Try telling that to fans of Colorado narrow gauge history!

I'll bet Bennett Levin didn't make a difference when he bought and refurbished the Conrail E8s. How could he. He is just an individual.



Tod Engine Foundation
todengine@woh.rr.com

well my first post doesn't make any sense without this pasted part of the Washington Times article that the site decided not to show. Here it is:

Reynolds said she wanted to emphasize stirring biographies -- "the power of the individual to make a difference" -- while the museum's staff held the view that "only movements and institutions make a difference, not individuals."

Tod Engine Foundation
todengine@woh.rr.com

Rick,

You stole the wind out of my sail. :) Anyway, this country was founded by way of rugged individualism. It's the individual that makes this country and our industry tick. How many individuals have devoted time to fundraising, restoration, etc? Some people may say teamwork got the job done, but what they don't take into account is that each member of each team has his/her own speciality.

I'm not buying into this liberal rhetoric. They want us to be equal--equally miserable. That includes masking the fact that some individuals achieve by way of their work ethic. I subscribe to the idea that "you reap what you sow." I'm not going to stand around waiting for government handouts and neither is my organization.

I'm an individual!
Gerald Kopiasz

> well my first post doesn't make any sense
> without this pasted part of the Washington
> Times article that the site decided not to
> show. Here it is:

> Reynolds said she wanted to emphasize
> stirring biographies -- "the power of
> the individual to make a difference" --
> while the museum's staff held the view that
> "only movements and institutions make a
> difference, not individuals."


hrrhs@aol.com