Yes this is pure speculation but is it not reasonable to presume that if they find someone to overhaul and operate the engine they would have to give this entity terms which they were not offering the Friends, namely either the full 15 year legal life of the boiler work in which to recoup or a lower rate or some level of participation in the cost of the work? I can't actually see them spending a penny themselves so the latter would be unlikely. Even with the first or second or some combination the prospect of someone stepping to the plate is improbable.

For someone to overhaul the engine on their own dime, pay $20K/year (the Friends offer) but do so with just a 10 year lease seems something out of the realm fantasy on the part of NRM. We shall see but most likely the engine just ends up sitting.

Steve

IMHO this will go down as by far the dummest business decision made in our industry in a VERY long time!!

Now, the NRM will have yet another dead relic to join its already barn full of other dead relics, no yearly cash income and perhaps most hurtful no good will ambassador out there helping spread the word that they even exist!!

Trust me, the chances of them finding another capable operator to put her back into mainline operation are somewhere between slim and none and slim left town!!!

Incredibly stupid but sadly true!!!

Ross Rowland

May I politely point out that there exists a school of philosophy in museum administration and ethics that decrees that museum artifacts are NOT to be considered as "income sources"--that the first responsibility is to the preservation of the artifacts and their place in the museum's role.

Now, of course this philosophy conflicts with the need for a museum to carry enough revenue to maintain itself. And of course museums and institutions have "cash cows" whose popularity carries a lot of the revenue necessary to keep the rest going--the Mona Lisa at the Louvre, the dolphin show at the aquarium, the pandas at the zoo, and the UP Big Boy at the NRM. But a lot of museums have their hands tied. Just try to propose a lease on a locomotive from the RR Museum of Pa. or California State RR Museum today.

Ah, but that's not entirely true in this field. If the mission is to educate as well as preserve then an operating engine does that in a way that nothing else does. In fact that is a type of preservation itself...capturing that for all to see. Not to mention help preserving the skills involved. Curating a dead engine does little to preserve the skills.

Perhaps a one of a kind engine of huge historical significance ought not to be operated. I don't think anyone would suggest John Bull be run on an ongoing basis or 999 (if it were still 1893 authentic, which it's not). But there are plenty of similar 4-8-4's and even one exact clone.

No, if 261 ends up sitting which it likely will they will have done everyone including themselves a great disservice, mitigated only by the fact that Mr. Sandberg & Co. will soldier on with another engine.

May I politely point out that there exists a school of philosophy in museum administration and ethics that decrees that museum artifacts are NOT to be considered as "income sources"--that the first responsibility is to the preservation of the artifacts and their place in the museum's role.

Now, of course this philosophy conflicts with the need for a museum to carry enough revenue to maintain itself. And of course museums and institutions have "cash cows" whose popularity carries a lot of the revenue necessary to keep the rest going--the Mona Lisa at the Louvre, the dolphin show at the aquarium, the pandas at the zoo, and the UP Big Boy at the NRM. But a lot of museums have their hands tied. Just try to propose a lease on a locomotive from the RR Museum of Pa. or California State RR Museum today.

You may indeed point that out, but every indication is that the dispute between the operators and owners of the 261 is a matter of economics, not ethics.

May I point out NO museum can preserve anything, unless it preserves itself. With government sponsorship drying up like a puddle on a hot July day,the question of the proper "use" of historic assets is increasingly important.

The answer will be elusive. Certainly, nobody would, as pointed out sanction the routine use of the John Bull, but on the other hand, the "preserve and protect, unimpaired for future generations" (and that means no degenerative use by the "present" generation) is as I understand, based on a fallacy that they can be preserved in perpetuity.

When "curatorial ethic" discussions were hot and heavy on RYPN, some folks more learned in metallurgy (PMs?) than an accountant asserted that brass bearings subjected to continuous pressure will eventually deform and that all iron and steel-especially of the early 20th century variety-contains impurities that will eventually cause their disintegration.

Now if and when the NRM does manage to have #261 made operational where oh where will they find the train for it to carry the paying passengers? Perhaps they will approach the Friends to see what they will charge. Wouldn't you want to be a fly on the wall for those discussions? They may find themselves in exactly the same position as the #1522 group, with a great locomotive - and nothing to haul with it. History may be repeating itself.

What? You mean they can't run it around their mile loop of demo track? <:-)

Sure they could, but they're going to need a bigger diesel "tender" to shove it around with!

...which is what they would need to do since they cried "uncle" in the NIMBY war years ago.

Steve

The opening proposal of an $800,000 sale or a $70,000 per year lease sounds like an accountant's rough "rule of thumb" that an annual lease rate should be about 10% of the value of the asset. Which figure came 1st to generate the other?
As for an operating lease or out right sale of a locomotive from the State Railroad Museum at East Strasburg, Pa., this is a legislative election year, and Pennsylvania needs money! How desperate is the State of California, and how insulated is the Sacramento Museum from the crisis? I don't think that their governor is much of a railfan.
Disclaimer: I am a Pennsylvania politician, and the candidates will shortly be coming to me for my endorsement. What should I tell them?

What is it you expect them to ask you to endorse, Jim?

dave

From my read of this thread did the NRM only receive the $10,000 per year lease payment? Did they receive additional compensation in any other way?

Their candidacy. In other words, potential candidates for the state legislature will be asking for votes, money, and quotable words of support. Once they get elected, they get to decide how much money the State Museum will get from the State taxpayers, and possibly make suggestions to the Museum managers about how the Museum might be allowed to get additional money in other ways.

In very general terms, I like to see public sector officials act as enterpreneurally as possible - in long term ways. Election cycles are short term, the system breaks down. State museums do two things: education and tourism development. PA has two things: taxes and history. You can generate more capital from selling history, probably taxes are about optimized out. What do you have to do to build history into a marketable commodity?

Endorse the guy who can answer this question rationally.

dave

765 was leased from the City of Ft Wayne for a dollar.
I don't think the city was bringing forth the money to restore 765. Why the decision like that was done. The engine was upkept as a static display by the FWRHS.

"Friends" put money down to work and restore 261.
All the NRM "offers" were outside the current lease agreement.
Probably the idea is to figure out the volunteer labor hours and calculate real
labor wages and you will find out the upkeep would cost lots more. No $10,000 for you!