I'd assume this as well. If parents are looking for info on the event and go to B&O museum's online presence, it's a very good idea to broadcast to them right away that, "Yep, you have the right place."

There is something wrong at a very basic level when a diesel is named "Chuggington".

Thanks, I should have proofread better.
Sorry if what I said sounded like I was insulting them, that was not the intent. I have been there several times and consider it a top notch organization and a very nice overall experience.

But as far as my statement, is there a nationally recognized standard of museum practices, that museums must sign up for and abide by a set of guidelines saying what they can and can't do with the artifacts in their care? My statement was basically if they wanted to get a magnetic smiley face to put on all the diesels for an event, but we really don't like it, there isn't much we can do about it is there?

I understand they are supposed to have a level of professionalism in regards to how they present and care for the collection. But ultimately, the equipment is in their hands and as said in the post after yours, they can scrap it if they want, no matter how rare or important it is to history. It is nice to know they have an entire bureaucracy dedicated to preventing shortsighted and stupid irreversible alterations, hopefully that will keep the crazy ideas at bay.

I highly recommend a visit to the B&O Museum if you have not been there previously.



Diesel engines can most certainly 'Chug'

Thank you Wesp. It was worth getting out of bed today. (learned something new)

Ah, a good reminder to re-read the mission statement and see if they ever put anything in that would preclude that infamous GG1. Nope. Still fits the museum's mission. How difficult is it to rewrite it to reflect their actual policy?

The GG1 still fits the Museum's mission for geographical reasons alone; but look at its condition. And is there any realistic thought that the B&O Museum will ever give it any serious attention? Meanwhile, the people who currently control the Museum allow their attention to be diverted to items that have little connection with Baltimore or the historic B&O. Certainly it is a good thing that the B&O Museum exists, and I would not want to cast aspersions on those who support it. But as long as the B&O Museum maintains its current policies, I will personally direct my financial support to other preservation entities whose priorities are more in line with my own thinking.

Tom

I have no problem with the use of special event logos such as the one shown above. A static museum is a dying museum. Historic preservation is not a static industry and cannot afford to be either. Preservation requires money and we are in competition for increasingly scarce financial donations. Current projections of the Gen X and millinials as far as their financial stability is not trending well-they may have less debt than previous generations, but their finances are much tighter.

Anything positive that we can do to promote railroading is good, whether it be through model railroading, train spotting or media such as Chuggington or Thomas. We need more train enthusiasts and should be very worried about the future of our endeavors. The situation at NRHS should cause us all to examine what our groups are doing to retain and increase membership and learn from their lessons. I find it very worrisome that a national historic preservation group is on the brink of collapse.

A "previous administration" (post-Chessie management, pre-current director) declared a previous GG1 "surplus"; that one is now at Green Bay, to the chagrin of many PRR fans and NRHS members in the area that helped get it to the B&O Museum in the 1980s.


Examples, please? I'll ignore Thomas/Chuggington as simply promotional entertainment.

Their recent partnership with the Japanese railroad museum comes to mind. A far better partnership, keeping in line with a focus on railroads that served Baltimore and Maryland, would be the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania.

I concede museums have to survive; in fact that was part of my original post. My concern is loosing touch with what the museum is for. Yes, the B&O does a good job (for the most part) with preservation but I believe with the focus on attracting children and their parents the stories of the railroad are not as important, stories such as labor, the experience of African-American railroaders and passengers, the loss of memory of how railroads were once run, the routine and sometime dangerous work of the shops and maintenance of way and train and engine service employees.

Yes, railroad museum must survive, but the must survive to preserve history and artifacts and I dare say the memory of an industry that while still viable and active has changed so much over the past 40 some years as to be very different industry today.

Just my thoughts. Perhaps it's best I don't work in the railroad museum field (although I trained for it).

I gave examples. The GG1 that I referenced is the one that crashed into Washington Union Station in 1953. It is not the one in Green Bay. Last I heard, it was still in Baltimore, deteriorating at a site away from the Museum. I referenced two B&O freight cars that were refused by the Museum, even as they continue to feature items that have little or no connection to the B&O. These were enough to sour my mood in relation to the Museum, so I have no more recent information about their doings. I tend to direct my attention elsewhere nowadays.
There are probably still some people at the Museum who have a strong sense of priorities, but they don't seem to be the ones in control. I would be happy to be proved wrong.

Tom

If you don't attract them to your site, how do you get them into a position to hear the stories you want to tell?

I truly wonder if people come to museums for the most part to 'see stuff' or hear a story? It's in vogue to focus on telling a story and not showing your collection.
While not a RR museum, a good example is the WW2 museum in New Orleans. It has a almost comical amount of reproduction stuff on display (including two very large displays) and a frighteningly small portion of their collection or original items out in the open, in favor of being what I call a "book pasted on the walls" and was for me, a massive disappointment (while my wife liked it. Go figure).
But I can't help but wonder how many people go to a museum to 'see stuff' as opposed to people in charge of museums telling us we want to hear stories instead?
I don't know either way, but I can generally say that almost anyone I know would say they'd rather be old stuff to look at if they went to a museum.

Good museums use the collection to tell the stories.