Alco Historical & Technical Society Update

NH0401 · **Posted:** Mon May 04, 2009 9:38 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't objects in the collection of a 501 c3 museum held in 'public trust' versus outright ownership ?

Accordingly, if ALCHTS (or some other group) was able to develop a FULLY FUNDED restoration and display plan for the boxcab (or any other artifact that is moribund) wouldn't it behoove the current custodian to de-access it and convey the piece to a 'better home'

Dave

Jdelhaye · **Posted:** Tue May 05, 2009 8:36 am

NH0401 wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't objects in the collection of a 501 c3 museum held in 'public trust' versus outright ownership ?

Accordingly, if ALCHTS (or some other group) was able to develop a FULLY FUNDED restoration and display plan for the boxcab (or any other artifact that is moribund) wouldn't it behoove the current custodian to de-access it and convey the piece to a 'better home'

Dave

<JOHN WAYNE VOICE> Well, thats a purty big herd o' what-ifs ya got there partner, ya'huh! </JOHN WAYNE VOICE>

JohnC · **Joined:** Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:20 pm **Posts:** 217

NH0401 wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't objects in the collection of a 501 c3 museum held in 'public trust' versus outright ownership ?

Accordingly, if ALCHTS (or some other group) was able to develop a FULLY FUNDED restoration and display plan for the boxcab (or any other artifact that is moribund) wouldn't it behoove the current custodian to de-access it and convey the piece to a 'better home'

Dave

Recent change in New York State Law(Regents) as well as the IRS states that if a group shuts down, they cannot sell the pieces to any individual, but they donate it another non-for-profit group.
In addition, any new group is required to have a statement in there constitution as well as their provisional charter in regards to disposing of assets.
New York State Regents also covers this with the required collections policy by stating:
"...Materials de-accessioned shall not be privately sold , given or otherwise transferred to the Corporations staff or Board Of Trustee."

The M&H group has succeeded in breaking these laws by selling the equipment to a board member.

Frank Hicks · **Posted:** Tue May 05, 2009 10:19 am

JohnC wrote:

The M&H group has succeeded in breaking these laws by selling the equipment to a board member.

So the NYC electrics and other assorted equipment stored near Albany are owned by an individual and not by the M&H NRHS chapter? I wasn't aware of that. Do you know about when the sale took place?

JohnC · **Joined:** Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:20 pm **Posts:** 217

I don't know the exact date, but I suspect in 2007. No one in the chapter will talk.

RCD · **Posted:** Tue May 05, 2009 11:48 am

And I don't think any one here should talk about it eather.

NH0401 · **Posted:** Tue May 05, 2009 12:10 pm

Quote:

And I don't think any one here should talk about it eather(sic).

As the Duke would say "why the hell not" !!!

Dave

BTW, proper spelling adds credibility to a position or argument.

steamtown observer · **Joined:** Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:11 pm **Posts:** 371

JohnC wrote:

I don't know the exact date, but I suspect in 2007. No one in the chapter will talk.

At this point the Society and the person are more or less interchangable - there are only a handful of members left anyway.

Perhaps this new Society could attempt to acquire the Alco photo collection? Assuming there is much of it left.

Jdelhaye · **Posted:** Tue May 05, 2009 3:54 pm

NH0401 wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't objects in the collection of a 501 c3 museum held in 'public trust' versus outright ownership ?

Accordingly, if ALCHTS (or some other group) was able to develop a FULLY FUNDED restoration and display plan for the boxcab (or any other artifact that is moribund) wouldn't it behoove the current custodian to de-access it and convey the piece to a 'better home'

Dave

OK, I've calmed down now, and feel that a slightly more civil response may be called for, without calling on dead horses or the ghost of the Duke.

Lets get hypothetical......

Imagine an "EMD Historic and Technical Society" is created, finds a home, and, in their search for artifacts for their sparkling new museum, decides they want the following locomotives:
B&O boxcab 50, Museum of Transport, St. Louis
B&O EA 51, B&O Museum, Baltimore
CB&Q E5 9911, IRM
ATSF 347C, CSRM
GN SD45 400, GNRHS
Etc, etc, etc.........

The EMDHTS has funds in place to restore, display, and interpret all of these locomotives.

Do the current "owners" have the obligation to simply turn over key items from their collections, to the detriment of their overall collection?

If your answer is yes, imagine what would happen when some new, well funded museum shows up at YOUR doorstop, demanding your artifacts, because "WE can do it BETTER", or "it BELONGS in our location"

The same scenario could be made with a Budd HTS demanding IRM's Nebraska Zephyr, A St Louis Car HTS demanding the Electroliner, or (fill in name of key part of YOUR collection).

This is a very slippery slope folks, and it all ends like this:

"Hi, we are from the Smithsonian, and we are here to HELP. Please have your entire collection ready for transport to our secure storage facility with 30 days"

No organization should ever have to part with their artifacts, simply because somebody else thinks they can do it better.

Jeff

My sincere apologies to the Smithsonian, but you folks are the big Goverment Museum in this country.

JohnC · **Joined:** Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:20 pm **Posts:** 217

No organization should ever have to part with their artifacts, simply because somebody else thinks they can do it better.

Jeff
I don't think that anyone is trying to acquire artifacts simply because they can "do it better", but rather when you see a museum starting to thin out a collection of artifacts, it tells you they may over their heads in restoration projects. I was only suggesting that the IL Ry Museum contact us if they wanted to dispose of this rare artifact.

One of the reasons that the M&H group is in trouble is because they are unable to "preserve" equipment as required by the NY State Charter. Because of this, I think it make perfect sense to give it to a group who may be able to care for it better.

I should also point out that this group and/or individual is under the gun to move the equipment as all of it sits on private property. The M&H group has been given notice to "move it or lose it" by the owners of the land it sits on. Some of the equipment sits in Glenmont while some sits in Colonie.

Jdelhaye · **Posted:** Tue May 05, 2009 5:59 pm

JohnC wrote:

I don't think that anyone is trying to acquire artifacts simply because they can "do it better", but rather when you see a museum starting to thin out a collection of artifacts, it tells you they may over their heads in restoration projects. I was only suggesting that the IL Ry Museum contact us if they wanted to dispose of this rare artifact.

AHTS.org website photo caption wrote:

Alco/GE/ IR jointly built many of these boxcab locomotives. This is one of several examples that are preserved. This one is residing at the Illinois Railway Museum. IR had one working at their plant in Phillipsburg, N.J. before its retirement. This is one locomotive that should return to its birthplace to be part of the Alco Museum collection.

There is still quite a bit of disparity between your "suggestion", and your websites "declaration".

Jeff

JohnC · **Joined:** Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:20 pm **Posts:** 217

Jdelhaye wrote:

JohnC wrote:

I don't think that anyone is trying to acquire artifacts simply because they can "do it better", but rather when you see a museum starting to thin out a collection of artifacts, it tells you they may over their heads in restoration projects. I was only suggesting that the IL Ry Museum contact us if they wanted to dispose of this rare artifact.

AHTS.org website photo caption wrote:

Alco/GE/ IR jointly built many of these boxcab locomotives. This is one of several examples that are preserved. This one is residing at the Illinois Railway Museum. IR had one working at their plant in Phillipsburg, N.J. before its retirement. This is one locomotive that should return to its birthplace to be part of the Alco Museum collection.

There is still quite a bit of disparity between your "suggestion", and your websites "declaration".

Jeff

Ever hear of a "Wish" list ??? The boxcab locomotive is one of the oldest examples of Alco construction in existence today.No a example does not necessarily have to come from the IL Ry Museum. That's why we would be interested in getting one.
I also should point out that a Boxcab that ran in NJ has no Historic reason for being in Illinois. That goes for many locomotives in museums across the country. The Pennsylvania never ran GG-1's in Illinois either!

This brings me to a larger point. What purpose or theme does a museum have? Is it to collect locomotives just for the sake of collecting? Or is to preserve area artifacts?

JohnC · **Joined:** Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:20 pm **Posts:** 217

Jdelhaye wrote:

JohnC wrote:

I don't think that anyone is trying to acquire artifacts simply because they can "do it better", but rather when you see a museum starting to thin out a collection of artifacts, it tells you they may over their heads in restoration projects. I was only suggesting that the IL Ry Museum contact us if they wanted to dispose of this rare artifact.

AHTS.org website photo caption wrote:

Alco/GE/ IR jointly built many of these boxcab locomotives. This is one of several examples that are preserved. This one is residing at the Illinois Railway Museum. IR had one working at their plant in Phillipsburg, N.J. before its retirement. This is one locomotive that should return to its birthplace to be part of the Alco Museum collection.

There is still quite a bit of disparity between your "suggestion", and your websites "declaration".

Jeff

I have changed the wording under the boxcab photo. I did not intend to start a problem so this should bring "peace over the land" of boxcabs.

Jdelhaye · **Posted:** Tue May 05, 2009 7:40 pm

JohnC wrote:

I have changed the wording under the boxcab photo. I did not intend to start a problem so this should bring "peace over the land" of boxcabs.

Thank you.

Jeff

Jdelhaye · **Posted:** Tue May 05, 2009 8:07 pm

JohnC wrote:

Ever hear of a "Wish" list ??? The boxcab locomotive is one of the oldest examples of Alco construction in existence today.No a example does not necessarily have to come from the IL Ry Museum. That's why we would be interested in getting one.
I also should point out that a Boxcab that ran in NJ has no Historic reason for being in Illinois. That goes for many locomotives in museums across the country. The Pennsylvania never ran GG-1's in Illinois either!

This brings me to a larger point. What purpose or theme does a museum have? Is it to collect locomotives just for the sake of collecting? Or is to preserve area artifacts?

There are many ALCO locomotives older than IRM's boxcab out there. All you have to do is consider the fact that ALCO also built the "other kind" of "smokey lokey's" too...
...You know the type, no traction motors, horizontal boiler, typically painted black, goes chugga chugga woo woo?

Now lets see, you are correct, in that the PRR never RAN GG1's in Illinois, but.....

....they did display one at the 1949 Chicago Railroad Fair.

I do believe you may have been confused by IRM's name...We are a Railway Museum that happens to be in Illinois, not a Museum about Railways that ran in Illinois. Our collection, while it may have a bit of a midwestern flavor to it, contains items from all over the country.

Jeff