Bart, as a 40+ year member of a chapter and the National, I could not agree with you more. You hit the spike squarely on the head.

Anybody who is insulted needs to wake up and face it.

The NMRA is in my opinion in a very similar state as the NRHS.

They have closed their archives and shipped them off to the
California RR Museum.

They have sold their headquarters building to TVRM and
are renting? space.

The NMRA seems to be handling the transition better then NRHS.

-Hudson

"I don't see how it is insulting when its the truth. There are people who want the organization to be all social and there are those that want it to be all preservation."

It's insulting that you think your OPINION is the truth. It's insulting that you present this false dichotomy. It's insulting that you seem to not understand that if a Chapter has a significant portion of retirees, that very few are going to be signing up to start a ten-year restoration, so we must throw Grandpa from the train. It's insulting that in your sense of exigency, you attribute opposition to as of yet not completely specified changes with no clear linkage as to how they will solve the bee in your bonnet to unjustified fear of change.

Let's be honest, whatever the NRHS is, it was built and maintained by those older members you seem to think there is no place for anymore. They shouldn't have their memberships or Chapters ripped away from them because some self-appointed experts can't find another tool other than a meat cleaver. Your way or the highway, right? No possibility of a maximized membership where Chapters can, as a group decide the focus and direction of their activities and accommodate divergent interests.

Now as for these younger members, here's a fact. They don't join organizations the way previous generations did. They aren't joining the Moose or the Elks, either. The Episcopal Church advertises on Baltimore Orioles broadcasts, because kids don't put their butts in pews. For better or worse, the world is more individualized.

Some of it I suspect is a cultural thing. My generation went to music stores and had woofers and tweeters, we had record (then tape, the CD) collections. The present generation grew up "ripping" MP3s and going to ITunes. They buy earbuds, not speakers. My generation rebuilt cars, putting new engines and transmissions in them. A customized car today (unless it's a pre 1990 model) isn't likely to have those modifications, it's not feasible.

But in talking to the young, I get the sense that they are crushed under debt and uncertainty. Household formation is at historically low levels.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-3 ... -year-lows

People who are still living with Mom and Dad because of college loans aren't avoiding the NRHS because there's some sort of culture war-it's because they already have enough on their plate.

Still, assuming there was this rift between "do stuff" and "let's get together", eliminating Chapters don't address that problem, it just concentrates power in Philadelphia and provides no local reason to belong to "the National". At our Chapter meeting the speaker told us that the model they were using was the National Rifle Association. Completely different groups with different missions (and as a member of both groups) and an absurd comparison.

Thanks Supe....I've been sitting this one out since I have no dog in the fight, and I only got interested in NRHS (after dropping our about 25 years ago) now because Wayne Laepple posted the announcement about the EBT history meeting. That, I'd go to if I were in the area. But combined with your quoted comment above it makes sense - how about "Let's get together and get stuff done."

I think this will bring people together - purpose. Self-perpetuation isn't purpose, its antipurpose on steroids.

dave

I haven't read all the threads, and won't, but it seems stronger communications between groups is a plus, the internet like here is very good to keep tabs together for everybody. It seems theres a wide variety of ways and methods to perform the duties, there may be specific donor/projects and then if someone doesnt know what where to donate to a general fund that the society can move those funds to a needy project. I don't know what the "crisis" is but adapting to todays world would help.

I'm sold. A national organization with some history, credentials and a good reputation can do much to help railway preservation -- as noted above.

I'm a non-member but hope the member disputes I'm reading about here can be resolved.

A national organization that draws public attention and helps attract grants to railway preservation is a worthwhile thing.

As someone who is, in a sense, between the "old geezers" and the "wet young whippersnappers," I have to say that both sides make valid arguments.

I've seen, worked with, or even been in groups that were setting themselves up for extinction ("the average age is between 70 and death") because of stasis, "we've always done it this way," and even making young, poor, etc. newcomers feel unwelcome.

I've also seen young, idealistic-to-the-point-of-delusion people who have apparently, to borrow a gripe of the "old geezers," "never had anyone ever say 'no' to them or was allowed to fail at something." If you've been around lately, you may have seen or heard them--they're the kind that can't accept that, for example, CSX or UP might say "no way" if you restore that B&O or SP steamer and try to run it on their tracks, or think if you just write a letter to the railroad and ask them for that locomotive or train or station, the railroad will have to donate it to them as long as you set up a non-profit to which to donate it. Having seen a fair share of this, I'm inclined to wager that about half of the "running off the young 'uns" is due to unwelcoming attitudes and behavior by the "old guard" (or at least enough of them to be obnoxious), and the other half being unrealistic expectations or desires of the "newbies" butting against whatever reality manifests itself--economic, logistical, legal, practical, whatever. (It's also worthwhile to remember that it only takes one undiplomatic, or rude, member or worker to undo dozens of positive interactions, just as you remember the bullies in school a lot more and longer than you remember the smiling faces, friendly greetings, etc.)

In the case of the NRHS, the problem is magnified because there are 100+ situations at play here, not one unified one. And I don't want to be cynical about this, but the national management's seemingly sudden latch onto "rail preservation" looks too much like a club in search of a mission, not the other way around. "Preservation" takes all kinds of forms, from the Eagle Scout clearing a track for a public park right-of-way and exhibit to the entire-railroad-and-mission projects like the Strasburg, Cumbres & Toltec, Grand Canyon, etc. but also the preservation of, and facilitation of access to, history, data, and information, from the history of a branch line to how to re-wire a diesel locomotive or passenger car, from Official Guides to photographs to reminisces to timetables to promotional advertising. The Internet has made the latter so blankety-blank much easier than the days when folks had to advertise in the back of Railroad Magazine to exchange photo, book, and timetable price lists, but the NRHS has, by and large, ignored that potential almost completely. The same cannot be said of the R&LHS. To be honest, even the lowly Railroad Station Historical Society, with its massive online database of rail structures extant nationwide, is "eating the NRHS's lunch" in this regard, as is Frank Hicks' electric traction vehicle database.

We can argue whether or not there is a "national rail preservation movement," as opposed to any national group of railfans. But IF there is going to be any "national rail preservation organization," it must, if it and the things it reveres are going to survive in the 21st century, start working to help consolidate, unify, and PRESERVE a diversity of online work in this regard, to not only act as a "central clearing house" but to be willing to preserve the databases or web pages after someone passes on or loses interest, or simply can't pay the hosting fees anymore. It's sure easier, in the long run, to preserve a couple of terabytes of HTML and text than it is to store and protect from the elements thousands of books and millions of photographs. And don't lock everything behind a "members-only" paywall, either--leave out enough, like commercial sites like TrainOrders and Kalmbach do, to entice, attract and be useful, without making the work unable to sustain itself at least somewhat.

""Preservation" takes all kinds of forms, from the Eagle Scout clearing a track for a public park right-of-way and exhibit to the entire-railroad-and-mission projects like the Strasburg, Cumbres & Toltec, Grand Canyon, etc. but also the preservation of, and facilitation of access to, history, data, and information, from the history of a branch line to how to re-wire a diesel locomotive or passenger car, from Official Guides to photographs to reminisces to timetables to promotional advertising. "


That's the inchoate thought I was trying form and spit out. Thank you.

"I'm sold. A national organization with some history, credentials and a good reputation can do much to help railway preservation -- as noted above. "

Ok, I'll agree with that, but the NRHS has been around for how long? Why don't they have those attributes now? Did they never have them or did they lose them, if they lost them, how and when did that happen?

They are complaining that "things have changed" and that they don't know how they can continue if they don't make some as of yet not completely specified changes. How did you get in such mortal peril? Didn't you see this earlier?

How does eliminating Chapters ensure that a new organization can respond effectively to these challenges and recognize and react appropriately to future changes, because the only constant is change. Saying we're going to be "donor driven", what exactly does that mean?

Better managed organizations have carefully deliberated massive changes that backfired. Anybody remember "New Coke"? (Coke was a blue chip that could survive a massive mistake, the NRHS is by its own declaration, facing conditions that might merit a "going concern" qualification -meaning we don't think they'll be around long-opinion from its auditors.)

There's a ton of organizations that said "we must change" and mission-leaped away from their bread and butter. Circuit City jettisoned off appliance sales and was more susceptible to the 2008 crisis, since you can postpone buying a new Ipod, but not a new washer. JC Penney decided to go after the youth sales and while still alive, is still the subject of Wall Street death watches.

I'm surprised there hasn't been a full-blown discussion since this information was released earlier this week - isn't it what people have been clamoring for?

http://nrhs.com/news/nrhs-reveals-detai ... ness-model
https://admin.nrhs.com/public//

I took a very quick look at the budget. Here are my first impressions:

1. Not a viable business model: In 2015, the budget says that there will be $608,000 in total income. Of that $608,000, $450,000 is supposed come from donations ($425,000) and Major Giving ($25,000). If I ignore those expected donations, the budgeted income in 2015 is only $158,000. That's a problem because the budget also calls for $289,500 to be consumed by operational business expenses (salary, insurance, audit, legal, PR, social media support, etc).
   
   Furthermore, on its website, the NRHS says:
   
   Quote:
   In June, a special committee was charged by the NRHS Board of Directors to create a new business model that would a) stabilize the society’s financial situation and b) transform NRHS into a modern society with a vital purpose.
   
   I just don't see how those numbers can cause a stabilization in the society's financial situation.... but I'm just an engineer, not an accountant.
   
   
2. Poor use of donations: In 2015, 30% of the expected donations ($131,500 of $450,000) have to be spent on day-to-day business of the organization.
   
   
3. Poor use of donations, part 2: Of the $450,000 in donations raised during 2015, only $100,000 gets distributed as Heritage Grants.
   
   
4. Library Selloff: The budget calls for raising $100,000 over four years from "Sale of Library Assets".

(Post edited after I realized the budget was two-pages long.)

We'll take it.

Wait. What is it?

<;-)

The fact that the NRHS is so dependent on donations to cover operating costs is very troubling. In general, an organization ought to reserve solicitation of donations for specific projects that are necessary but cannot be funded through the normal budgeting process. A proposed project should have a proposed budget and timeline before it is presented to potential donors, so that they have a reasonable idea of what their money will do to accomplish the stated goal.

If an organization intends to have a central individual act as a media contact or coordinator, they need to put emphasis on timely responses to inquiries. Timely means within the same day at the longest. With the capabilities of today's computers, there is no reason that an initial contact cannot be responded to with an auto reply and an alert sent to the contact person. I deal with electronic filing and communications in our office and my personal goal is to respond to any incoming inquiry within ten minutes when I am at my desk. If I am out of the office, you'll get an auto-reply with contact information for my relief if you need immediate assistance. Times are changing and the organizations that master the change will do well and those that do not will wither.

Yeah, the NMRA is dealing with model train industry people and appears very active in regard to a person-per-person way. I encounter plenty of NMRA people who will verbally back that group and what it does. I don't hear that nearly as much for the NRHS.
All that said, while I do have model trains, I personally have zero need for the NMRA on a personal level. That said, their national covention will be very close to me next year, so i might join so I can attend for that reason alone...

We worked the numbers several different ways on expected income for 2015 and came to around the same number every time. The New Business Model committee is confident in the $425,000 for donations. This whole model was built on analysis of facts and past performance of giving of current NRHS members (many who already give substantially over their dues payment) -- if anyone wants say we'll have less than $425,000 and can base that on facts, we're listening. The one thing the New Business Model committee did not do was make decisions based on opinion -- "That's the way it's always been done" or "That will never work" were not viable decision-making phrases.

As for the percentage actually going to grants this year, remember that this is a first-year start-up budget. We anticipate donations to rise each subsequent year while expenses, while not flat, will rise at a rate substantially less. This will cause that percentage to drop. To be successful, however, we feel that a paid operations director is essential as soon as the money is available to pay for one.

Steve Barry
NRHS New Business Model Committee